Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PRIVATE BILLS (PROCEDURE)

Motion made,

That—

(1) the Promoters of every Private Bill which originated in this House or was brought from the House of Lords in the last Parliament shall have leave to proceed with that Bill, if they think fit, in the present Session;
(2) every such Bill which originated in this House shall be presented to the House not later than the fifth day on which the House sits after this day;
(3) there shall be deposited with every Bill so presented a declaration signed by the Agent for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the last Parliament;
(4) every Bill so presented shall be laid by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the Table of the House on the next Meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill was presented;
(5) every Bill so laid on the Table shall be deemed to have been read the first time and (if the Bill had been read a second time in the last Parliament) to have been read a second time and—

(i) if such Bill had been referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills in the last Parliament, it shall stand so referred;
(ii) if such Bill had been referred to a Committee during the last Parliament and not reported by that Committee to the House. the Bill shall stand committed and—

(a) all Petitions against the Bill which stood referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the present Session, subject to the determination of any outstanding objection to the locus standi of any petitioner; and
(b) any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the present Session;
(iii) if such Bill had been reported by any Committee, it shall be ordered to be read the third time unless it had been reported with Amendments in the last Parliament and had not been considered as so amended, in which case it shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
(iv) if such Bill had been read the third time in the last Parliament, it shall be deemed to have been read the third time;

(6) paragraph (2) of Standing Order 166 relating to Private Business (First reading) shall not apply to any Bill brought from the House of Lords in the present Session and to which this Order relates;
(7) when any Bill which was brought from the House of Lords in the last Parliament and to which this Order relates is brought from the House of Lords in the present Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the House of Lords in the last Parliament and, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that such a declaration has been so deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House—

(i) unless the Examiner had reported pursuant to Standing Order 74 relating to Private Business (Examination of bills brought from the House of Lords, etc.), the Bill shall stand referred to the Examiners;
(ii) if the Examiner had so reported, the Bill shall be ordered to be read a second time, or, if it had been read a second time, it shall be read a second time and committed; but
(iii) if the Bill had been reported by a Committee with Amendments in the last Parliament it shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means who shall make only such Amendments to the Bill as had been made thereto by the Committee in the last Parliament, and shall report the Bill to the House forthwith, and the Bill shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
(8) any Bill which under the provisions of this Order is deemed to have been read the first time, or the first and second time, or the first, second and third time, shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having been so read;
(9) without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph (5) of this Order, only those Petitions against any Bill which stood referred to the Committee on the Bill and which had not been withdrawn or had been deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business (Reference to committee of petitions against bill) shall stand referred to the Committee on the same Bill in the present Session;
(10) in relation to any Bill to which this Order applies Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business (Right of audience before committees on opposed bills) shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill)" were omitted.
(11) where any Standing Order had been dispensed with in respect of any private Bill in the last Parliament, those Standing Orders shall be deemed to have been ordered to be dispensed with in respect of any such Bill presented or brought from the Lords in pursuance of this Order;
(12) any Standing Orders complied with in respect of any Bill originating in the House of Lords to which this Order relates shall be deemed to have been complied with in respect of such Bill if the same is brought from the House of Lords in the present Session, and any notices published or given and any deposits made in respect of such Bill in the last Parliament shall be held to have been published, given and made, respectively, for the Bill so brought from the House of Lords in the present Session;
(13) no further fees shall be charged in respect of proceedings on a Bill in respect of which fees have been incurred in the last Parliament.

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.— [The Chairman of Ways and Means. ]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered on Monday 16 June at 7 o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Government Communications Headquarters, Cheltenham

Mr. Trickett: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on trade union rights at GCHQ. [1158]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I announced on 15 May that we were fulfilling our long-standing commitment to restore to staff at GCHQ the freedom to join the independent trade union of their choice. Management and unions will shortly commence negotiations on a collective agreement to provide safeguards against disruption. GCHQ staff make a valuable contribution to protecting the liberties and freedoms of our country. They are now able to share fully in one of the important liberties that they defend.

Mr. Trickett: Will the Foreign Secretary accept that millions of people, both here and abroad, will welcome his statement this afternoon? Does he agree with the sacked GCHQ workers that this was a wrong that was righted at long last? Does he accept that the ban on trade unions at GCHQ has done us profound damage abroad and that, while the ban continued, it was impossible for this country to lecture others on respect for human rights?

Mr. Cook: I am glad of the warm welcome that has been given to our announcement by many of the 14 members of staff who were dismissed because of their refusal to give up trade union activity. The Labour party has never accepted the vile slur on which the ban was based: that people cannot be patriotic and also loyal to a trade union. That was a slur not just on the GCHQ staff, but on millions of patriotic trade union members and I am glad that we have put that right.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it was a mistake for the national unions to call GCHQ workers out on strike? Will he name another country in the western world where people involved in signals intelligence were able either to join a union or to go on strike? Would he care to say whether he would like his staff overseas to be able to go on declaring around the world that this country is now virtually national-strike-free?

Mr. Cook: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this country will continue to do its duty and will see that duty done by its staff abroad. We have seen an excellent example of the way in which Foreign Office staff work without regard to any consideration of rights and conditions in the way that our staff at Sierra Leone managed the magnificent evacuation of 2,000 people, which was done by only five people working around the clock. Therefore, the slur that the hon. Gentleman makes on Foreign Office staff is unacceptable.
We are considering the provision, by collective agreement, against disruption by GCHQ staff, but the hon. Gentleman is very wide of the mark. Far from being the odd one out now because we have restored the rights to join a trade union at GCHQ, it was during the period of the hon. Gentleman's Government that Britain was out of step with the rest of the world and was nearly required to leave the International Labour Organisation because we could not meet its conditions.

Mr. Nigel Jones: I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on removing the ban on trade union rights for GCHQ staff.
Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the possibility of compensating those 14 workers who were sacked because of continuing to stick to their principles? Most of them are my constituents. Mike Grindley, Clive Lloyd—all those brave people stuck to their principles through thick and thin and deserve some recognition for that.

Mr. Cook: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's congratulations.
I understand that compensation is being discussed between management and the 14 people concerned. Compensation was paid to the limit at the time of their dismissal. We would have to think carefully before we undertook any commitment to compensate people who lost employment during the 18 years of the previous Government, or the bill could be very large indeed.

Human Rights

Mr. Hutton: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the Government's policy on human rights. [1159]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): We have made it clear that human rights will be a central element of this Government's foreign policy. As set out by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in the mission statement of 12 May, we shall work through international forums and bilateral relationships to spread the values of human rights, civil liberties and democracy that we demand for ourselves.

Mr. Hutton: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment, and welcome the new emphasis that the Government are placing on promoting human rights around the world. I think that it will be strongly supported by the British people.
Does my hon. Friend agree that a significant step towards protecting human rights would be the establishment of a permanent international criminal court with extensive jurisdiction to try cases involving serious human rights abuses? What measures will the Government take in that regard?

Mr. Lloyd: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. We appreciate the warm reception that the changed policy on human rights has received not just in this country, but throughout the world.
We support the proposal for an international criminal court, not only in principle but in practice. We intend to participate actively in the work of the preparatory


committee, and in the other meetings to negotiate a statute for the court. We strongly support the idea of holding a diplomatic conference in 1998 to establish that court. We intend to ensure that any doubts that have existed in the past about the British Government's commitment will be dispelled by this Government: we want an effective international criminal court.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Would the Minister be sympathetic to the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into domestic law?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, we would be sympathetic to that.

Mrs. Clwyd: May I say how glad I am to see my hon. Friend and the rest of the foreign affairs team on the Front Bench, and how delighted we are that human rights has been put at the front of the Department's agenda?
Given the continuing evidence that arms exports to Indonesia are being used for internal repression, what consideration has my hon. Friend given to banning arms exports to Indonesia outright?

Mr. Lloyd: We have serious concerns about human rights in Indonesia. One of the first actions of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister of State was to ask for an investigation of the events in Bandung and Jakarta.
My hon. Friend will know that, on 22 May, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced that the Government would conduct a review of the mechanics and the detailed criteria used in the issuing of licences for exports of conventional arms. Perhaps my hon. Friend will forgive me if I say that it would be practically premature for us to give any specific country-by-country response at this stage.

Dr. Fox: I, too, welcome the Minister to his post. Does he agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the last Government were right to export Hawk aircraft to Indonesia?

Mr. Lloyd: I can only repeat that, while we make it clear that the human rights dimension is an important part of the way in which we shall consider applications for export licences, the review announced by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has not yet been completed, although it will be completed very rapidly. Until that time, it would be foolish for us to make any further comment.

China

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about UK relations with China. [1160]

Sir Archie Hamilton: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the implications of the Government's human rights stance for trade relations with China. [1170]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): China has emerged as a major power with a rapidly growing economy. That, in turn, will lead to internal change within Chinese society. We want to open a new chapter of more constructive relations with China across the board, addressing both trade and more difficult issues such as human rights. Transparency and the rule of law are important both on human rights grounds and as a basis for sound commercial relations.

Mr. Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. In the recent past, our European partners have had better relationships with China. Does my hon. Friend envisage any stumbling blocks in the future? Can the handover of Hong Kong become a bridge towards a better relationship with China, rather than the stumbling block that it has constituted in the past?

Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend is right to say that it is important to open a new chapter in our relations with China. We are all keen to make a success of the handover of Hong Kong, and to ensure that it constitutes a bridge between our two countries rather than a barrier; but, at the same time, we must address difficult and important issues with China. The human rights agenda will be important to us, and I can tell my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend and I have already raised our concerns about human rights in our meetings with the ambassador.

Sir Archie Hamilton: Does the Minister agree that there is a balance between trade and human rights, and that, if he presses the human rights case too hard, we shall lose in trade? What are the implications of that for British jobs?

Mr. Fatchett: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is a balance, but it is not a question of either/or. We must be concerned about human rights, as we are concerned about developing trade, and we can use the opportunities of trade to expand the human rights agenda. I am a little surprised, however, that the right hon. Gentleman finds time to lecture the Government on their record of trade with China, when the previous Government did not pay much regard to the human rights agenda. Their trade performance with China was considerably worse than that of other countries, which gave much more priority to the human rights agenda.

Mr. MacShane: I welcome my hon. Friend to his post and invite him to take no notice of lectures on human rights from the Conservatives, whose performance in office was an international scandal.
On China, may I invite my hon. Friend to continue to exert pressure for the release of Wei Jing Sheng, the distinguished democracy wall writer, often called the Sakharov of China, whose continued imprisonment for his writings remains very much a stone in the shoe of amicable relations between China and our and other democratic countries?

Mr. Fatchett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening comments and for the comments that he made about the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton). I must say that it is a pleasure to see


the right hon. Gentleman here, rather than carrying out his other duties as returning officer today, which I thought might be even more important to him.
My hon. Friend draws attention to an important case in China. I give my hon. Friend a clear commitment that, on individual cases and in general, we shall continue to press the human rights agenda. It is important to us, and my hon. Friend will see the change in the flavour of the Government's approach.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will the hon. Gentleman make certain that, in all Her Majesty's Government's dealings with China, the issue of Tibet is not forgotten and rolled under the carpet? Is it not the case that the systematic abuse of human rights and of the people of Tibet for very many years by the Chinese authorities has seriously prejudiced the view that people in the free world hold of the People's Republic of China, and that, in the long term, it must be detrimental to trading relations also unless the authorities do something to improve human rights in Tibet?

Mr. Fatchett: I share the hon. Gentleman's concerns. We also appreciate the important human rights agenda in relation to Tibet; the hon. Gentleman made those points with great force. In the meetings that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have had individually with the ambassador, the issue of human rights has been raised, and Tibet is on that agenda.

Mr. Barry Jones: How will the Ministers assist the exports into the republic of the products of British Aerospace and Airbus Industrie, in Europe? Does my hon. Friend agree that aerospace is one of our biggest industries, using skilled labour, and that there is a huge market in the republic?

Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend is correct to point out the importance of raising our trade profile with China. As he knows from my earlier response, we have not performed as well in China as we have other countries, and there is a clear lesson to be learnt from the failures of the previous Government in that regard. We shall build up a much more positive relationship with China.
On the specific issue of Airbus, I notice the success of President Chirac in his recent visit. Perhaps we should send a few words of thanks to President Chirac, because he brought work and jobs, not only to France, but to the United Kingdom.

Middle East Peace Process

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet the Prime Minister of Israel to discuss the middle east peace process; and if he will make a statement. [1161]

Mr. Fatchett: When I visited the front-line peace process states, on 25 to 30 May, I was not able to meet Prime Minister Netanyahu, who was attending an urgent summit with President Mubarak. My visit reflected the high priority that we give to the search for a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the middle east, and the close contact that we maintain with the region's leaders.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs very much hopes to visit the region in the autumn.

Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful for that answer. Will the Minister join me in condemning the murder of three Palestinian land agents and the attempted murder of a fourth Palestinian land agent by fellow Palestinians? Is he aware that those murders have been tacitly encouraged by certain senior officers of the Palestine National Authority? Does he agree that that can be of no help to the peace process?

Mr. Fatchett: I can do better than join the hon. Gentleman in the points that he makes. I have already publicly condemned the actions and the events to which he refers, and I have already made it clear to the Palestine National Authority that, equally, it should condemn such activities. I have made the same point to the Authority in another way, by telling it that, although it has many friends in the United Kingdom who understand the Palestinians' case, it does not help that case by failing to condemn the type of activity mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ivan Lewis: When he spoke to the Palestine National Authority, did my hon. Friend offer it the Government's support for its difficult work? However, did he also make it clear that there are significant concerns about the Authority's use of the public money that it is receiving from international sources, because of serious allegations that a significant proportion of that money is not being used appropriately?

Mr. Fatchett: I can assure my hon. Friend that I expressed those concerns publicly, and privately, in my meeting with Prime Minister Arafat. It is important to all public and private donors to the Palestinian Authority that all money is accounted for and that there is a clear rule of law in the administration of public funds. I have made those points clear, and, in the context of Palestine, I have said that our approach to human rights is not a la carte. We shall have universal principles, and we shall apply those in each and every circumstance.

Mr. Soames: If the Government are truly interested in promoting human rights, will the Minister confirm that, when he next meets the Israeli Prime Minister, he will tell him that the Government of Israel have done a great wrong and harm, as they continue to do, to the Palestinians? To move the peace process further and faster along. will the Minister assure the House that he will listen with care and attention to the views of our friends and allies in the Gulf, whose views on those matters are not always given the attention that they deserve?

Mr. Fatchett: I always felt that the hon. Gentleman would do better in opposition than in government, and his question shows that that is the case. We are keen to push forward the peace process, to ensure that we achieve a just and comprehensive peace that provides political integrity and prosperity for the Palestinians and security for the Israelis. We shall do all we can to ensure that we are an active player in that process.

Mr. Ernie Ross: I congratulate my hon. Friend not only on taking up his position as Minister with responsibility for middle east affairs but on his most recent visit to the area, which went down very well.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend on his visit to Har Homa. Does he regret that he was unable to meet Prime Minister Netanyahu, so that he could make it clear to him that the Alon-plus plan—which Mr. Netanyahu has begun to float as a means of resolving the final settlement of Palestinians—is not acceptable either to the Palestinians or to the international community should it deny the possibility of a land link between a Palestinian state and its Arab neighbour, Jordan?

Mr. Fatchett: I am again grateful for the kind words from my hon. Friend, although I do not know how long the love-in between Ministers and Back Benchers will continue.
My hon. Friend is right to say that any final settlement must take full account of the wishes and aspirations of the Palestinian people. If the Palestinian entity is to be successful and durable, it will have to ensure that it has a proper land mass and a proper identity to meet those aspirations. Those are issues for the final status negotiations, which we are keen to ensure start with a real chance of success.

BBC World Service

Mr. Öpik: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future of the BBC World Service. [1163]

Mr. Fatchett: The BBC World Service makes a vital contribution to the promotion of Britain abroad. We want it to flourish and in doing so continue to build on its outstanding international reputation for objective news and comment. Through the Foreign Office and BBC World Service working group, we shall continue to ensure the maintenance of a special quality, style and ethos for the World Service's output.

Mr. Öpik: I thank the Minister for his answer. Would he consider introducing the practice of providing the World Service with funding intentions for five years ahead so that it can improve its strategic planning ability? Will he reaffirm the Government's support for the World Service's intention to create programmes in foreign languages for areas it deems best served by television rather than by radio?

Mr. Fatchett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, which gives me the opportunity to sing the praises of the BBC World Service. It is an important part of this country's diplomatic activities. It is clear, whatever country one visits in the world, that the reputation of the BBC and therefore of Britain is extremely high.
On the specific issues that the hon. Gentleman mentions, I reassure him that the number of languages covered by the BBC World Service has increased in recent years. The question of balance is always under consideration. The hon. Gentleman's funding point will be taken into account along with all the other funding issues in the Government's comprehensive spending review.

Mr. Pond: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment to his post and I welcome his comments about the importance of the BBC World Service, not only because of its diplomatic importance, but because of the important cultural role it performs. As my hon. Friend will be aware, until fairly recently the World Service was subject to a three-year funding programme which gave it some opportunity to plan ahead and to take advantage of potential developments. Under the previous Administration, without consultation and unilaterally, that arrangement was withdrawn. The World Service now has to operate on the basis of annual funding which makes it difficult for it to fulfil its potential. Will my hon. Friend consider reviewing the basis of funding?

Mr. Fatchett: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that any decisions taken about the BBC World Service's financial structure will follow detailed consultation with the BBC World Service. The detail and the outcome are, of course, subject to the Government's comprehensive spending review.

Mr. Gamier: How much money has the Foreign Office given the BBC World Service in this financial year and how much will it give in the next two financial years?

Mr. Fatchett: I am slightly surprised by the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, because he raises an issue to which he clearly knows the answer. The rules are set out in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office annual report. I suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman finds the Library; the information will be there and readily available to him. He will also find there the figures for the next two financial years. I said to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) that I thought that he would do well in opposition. One thing is certain; the hon. and learned Gentleman's performance in opposition will be no better than his performance in government; it will be equally bad.

Hong Kong

Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the handover of Hong Kong to China. [1164]

Mr. Robin Cook: A successful transition for Hong Kong is one of our highest priorities. We are committed to doing all that we can, working with the Government of China and the incoming Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, to secure Hong Kong's continuing stability, prosperity and freedoms through and beyond the handover, on the basis of the Joint Declaration.

Mrs. Mahon: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his position. Does he agree that Hong Kong's continued success will depend on the rule of law and on civil and political freedoms?

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the success of the Hong Kong economy depends very much on the rule of law and the liberties of Hong Kong, which are protected by the Joint Declaration until 2047. I can assure the House that the Government will continue to monitor the observance of those liberties and report on


that to the House every six months. The Joint Liaison Group has a continuing role until 2000 monitoring the conduct of the Joint Declaration. We shall play a full part in that. We shall also work with our international allies to make sure that international interest continues to be shown in Hong Kong so that we fulfil our obligation to the people of Hong Kong that the handover terms are honoured in the years ahead.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I also congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his appointment.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the House, and indeed the other place, should have a continuing role in monitoring what goes on in Hong Kong until 2047? Does he consider that it would be appropriate to set up a special Committee for that very purpose?

Mr. Cook: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Britain's interest in Hong Kong must not end at midnight on 30 June. We shall have a strong continuing interest, both commercially and as one of the architects of the Joint Declaration, in making sure that its freedoms are observed. A Committee of the House may well serve a purpose, but that is essentially a matter for the House to resolve. I certainly intend to keep the House informed, and I hope that hon. Members will wish to participate in debates on the matter.

Mr. Rowlands: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Chinese authorities have announced their intention to dismiss some of those who were democratically elected in Hong Kong and carry popular support? Will he therefore convey to the Chinese authorities our strength of feeling on that issue and encourage our European Union partners and the United States to do so as well?

Mr. Cook: I can assure my hon. Friend that, in opposition, in government and in the House, I have roundly condemned the action of the Chinese Government in dismissing the elected Legislative Council of Hong Kong and their intention to replace it on 1 July with a Legislative Council appointed by a committee set up by Beijing. There is no way in which we can accept that as a proper implementation of the Joint Declaration or as demonstrating respect for the democratic choices of the people of Hong Kong. We shall continue to press that view. In the meantime, we attach particular importance to the commitment of the Chinese Government to hold free and fair elections for a new Legislative Council within 12 months, and we expect that commitment to be fulfilled.

Social Chapter

Mr. Streeter: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his European colleagues on the introduction of the social chapter into the United Kingdom. [1165]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson): Incorporation of the social chapter into the main EC treaty and its extension to the United Kingdom are being considered within the intergovernmental conference. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have discussed the issue with a number of my European colleagues both in bilateral meetings and at IGC sessions.

Mr. Streeter: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post.
Given that future new directives under the social chapter can be introduced by qualified majority voting, what guarantee can the Minister give the House today that future new directives will not be imposed on the United Kingdom if they are harmful to its interests?

Mr. Henderson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his initial kind remarks.
I remind the non. Gentleman that the previous Government participated in the initial discussions on the establishment of a social chapter and had the opportunity to become involved in the regulations that were drawn up at that time. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are provisions for extension under qualified majority voting. One of the proposals currently under consideration concerns the burden of proof. I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that our European partners are following Britain's example, principles and practice in that matter. That is an early sign of the positive contribution that Britain is making to the new climate in Europe.

Dr. Palmer: Is the Minister aware of the widespread astonishment in Europe that a national political party in Britain actually opposes the very limited rights laid down in the social chapter? Is he further aware that that astonishment is shared by my predecessor, the former Conservative Member for Broxstowe?

Mr. Henderson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is interesting at European meetings when our partners ask why Britain failed to score any goals in the past. I am delighted to say that one could not expect anything else when they were not on the playing field in the first place.

Mr. David Davis: The Minister signally failed to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter). He has clearly forgotten that Labour proposed to sign the social chapter. If the proposal to extend the works council directive to firms of only 50 employees is carried by majority voting, will the Government implement the decision?

Mr. Henderson: The Government are bound by European treaties. There is no question of a British Government not complying with treaties. Due to the positive climate in Europe, we are able to insist among our colleagues that there be a full examination of all the issues and principles involved and that British organisations, such as the Institute of Directors, be invited to give evidence. When we have heard that evidence, we will come to conclusions.

Kashmir

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions Her Majesty's Government have had with representatives of the Pakistan and Indian Governments about the position in Kashmir. [1166]

Mr. Fatchett: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed Kashmir with the Indian Prime Minister's envoy on 21 May. I intend to discuss the issue during visits to India and Pakistan later this week.

Mr. Pike: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment. Would there be any better way in which to celebrate the 50th anniversary of independence for Pakistan and India than to resolve the long outstanding problem of Kashmir? Although the key to unlocking the problem is clearly in the hands of India, with a positive response from Pakistan, will my hon. Friend make it clear that the new British Government intend to take a much more positive attitude in trying to end this long-running problem?

Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend has taken a long and very keen interest in the issue of Kashmir and what is happening in Kashmir and to the people of Kashmir. He is absolutely right to say that a breakthrough in relations between India and Pakistan would be very appropriate in the 50th year of independence.
We warmly welcome the new atmosphere that seems to have been generated recently and anticipate with hope the talks between the Pakistan and Indian Governments. We hope that they will create a totally new framework of relationships between India and Pakistan. As my hon. Friend knows, we as a party, and now as a Government, have expressed our keen interest in developing relations with India and Pakistan and looking for a solution to the problems in Kashmir. We have also said on many occasions that, if it would be of any assistance to the two Governments, we would be willing to play a constructive role.

Mr. Colvin: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Government Front Bench. Will he consider two initiatives that the United Kingdom could take? First, the Government could convene a conference between India and Pakistan under the provisions of the Simla agreement of 1972 and, with the agreement of both sides, chair that conference. Secondly, bearing in mind that the dispute is between Commonwealth states, will he consider finding a way of putting the problem of Kashmir on the agenda of the next conference of heads of state of Commonwealth countries?

Mr. Fatchett: We would very much encourage the talks between the Indian and Pakistan Governments. We see that as the most appropriate way in which to make progress. The framework for the talks has been provided by United Nations resolutions and the Simla agreement, but we would initially look to the parties themselves as the best way in which to get a lasting and just solution to the problems.

Europe (Government Policy)

Mr. Radice: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards Europe. [1167]

Mr. Robin Cook: We believe that our membership of the European Union is vital to Britain's exports and jobs, improves the security of our continent and increases our clout in trade talks and world affairs. We are committed to developing a people's Europe that is more open to the citizens of Britain and the continent and more relevant to their concerns about jobs, crime and the environment. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made excellent progress towards that objective yesterday when

he obtained agreement at Ecofin to boost jobs through improving employability, completing the single market and promoting economic growth.

Mr. Radice: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his new position and thank him for his statement. Does he agree that last night's Division, in which the biggest pro-European vote ever was recorded in the House, is an overwhelming endorsement of the Government's new constructive approach and makes it much more likely that we will get an agreement in Amsterdam that is good for Britain and good for Europe?

Mr. Cook: As my hon. Friend will have observed, in our first month in office we have achieved our first objective in relations with the European Union, transforming the negotiating climate for Amsterdam. We shall go ready for some tough bargaining to secure hard gains for Britain. We have every prospect of achieving progress for Europe and a good deal for Britain, including a legal basis for our border controls, which was never obtained by the Conservatives.

Miss McIntosh: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the mood of the country is not to sign up to any further erosion of sovereignty or any moves towards federalism? Does he agree with the Director General of the Confederation of British Industry, Mr. Adair Turner, that the only way to maintain our sovereignty is not to sign up to the social chapter and not to give away any more powers to qualified majority voting?

Mr. Cook: I am happy to say that I shall meet Mr. Adair Turner later this week, when I shall have an opportunity to explore his views. This Government are here as a result of the views of the British people who, every time they have been asked, have come out overwhelmingly in support of the social chapter. I find it depressing that, despite the result of the last election, which contributed to the outcome of last night's Division, the Conservatives seem to have learnt no lessons and not changed their tune, despite their overwhelming rejection by the British people.

Mr. Derek Foster: I welcome my right hon. Friend and his colleagues to their Front-Bench positions. Now that the Prime Minister has put Great Britain at the heart of Europe, will he explain to our European partners that, if economic and monetary union is to succeed, it has to address the people's agenda of jobs and growth and that, if it does not address that agenda, regardless of whether it goes ahead on time, it cannot succeed?

Mr. Cook: I am pleased to say that my right hon. Friend said firmly in Sweden that what is important for the peoples of Europe is that we strengthen our economies, not necessarily that we integrate them. That is why we are opening up an agenda addressing the concerns of the people of Europe that will tackle the economy and growth and will focus on their worries about the environment and about organised crime, which knows no borders. If Europe switches to tackling the issues that affect the quality of life of the citizens of Europe, we can restore popular legitimacy for the European project.

Mr. David Heath: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm one issue on which there is a scintilla of doubt? Does it remain the Government's clear intention to introduce proportional representation in time for the 1999 elections to the European Parliament?

Mr. Cook: I am happy to repeat what I said during the month before the general election. It is our wish and intention to introduce a new electoral system based on lists and proportional representation for the next European elections. I said at the time that the timetable is very tight and that legislation will need to be carried through this winter if it is to happen. We are still examining whether that is possible, but we have certainly not ruled it out.

Mr. Gapes: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his post. Will he confirm that the policy of this Government, as opposed to that of their predecessors, will be to work co-operatively—to build alliances rather than to seek inglorious isolation?

Mr. Cook: Glorious isolation did not prove a useful position from which to negotiate. We have demonstrated that by going to Europe in a spirit of partnership, seeking solutions to common problems. We get a much better hearing and a much better answer than if we go in a spirit of sterile, negative opposition, which the Conservatives chose. We go to Europe to do a deal, not to strike postures for a domestic audience as the Conservatives did.

Mrs. Ewing: The Foreign Secretary has rightly placed employment at the heart of the policy issues for the European Union. On behalf of the coastal communities of the United Kingdom, I ask him to respond more effectively to the points raised yesterday about quota hopping by my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) and by the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. Cook: The hon. Lady raises a serious and important point, and we have stressed that the issue of quota hopping and the economic future of our fishing communities is one of our high negotiating priorities for Amsterdam. We are hopeful that our discussions with the Commission will produce a package that we can confirm at Amsterdam and that will bring significant economic gains to those communities.

United States

Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to visit Washington to discuss UK-US relations. [1168]

Mr. Robin Cook: I met Secretary of State Albright two weeks ago in Washington and we had a positive and full discussion on US-UK relations. Both sides of the House will want to welcome warmly the outstanding success of President Clinton's visit the other week.

Mr. Smith: Did my right hon. Friend raise with his American counterpart the need for substantial progress at the international environment summit in New York later this month? Will he also raise with her in the future the problem of toxic and radioactive pollution that was left in the United Kingdom in the bases used by the US military?

Mr. Cook: I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that I had a full discussion with Secretary of State Albright on environmental issues of international concern. We are both agreed that, in the next century, the environmental agenda will become much more prominent in international relations, and we look forward to working together at Denver to try to prepare statements on climate change that we can take to the summit in New York the subsequent week. The toxic contamination of US bases is primarily an issue for domestic Departments, but if they ask us for help, we will be pleased to raise the matter with the United States. When we go to international summits to call on other countries to meet the targets necessary to safeguard the global climate, it is important that we show an example in our back yard by ensuring that we have a healthy environment for our people.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm to President Clinton when he visits him the importance and primacy of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and, in particular, American involvement in it? Will he confirm that nothing in his future policies in connection with a European defence policy, whether through the Western European Union or any other body, will water down the importance of NATO's role?

Mr. Cook: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that we have repeatedly stressed to our American allies the importance we attach to NATO. We have worked closely with the Americans in the North Atlantic Council, and will work closely with them on the preparations for the Madrid summit on enlargement. We hope that we will be able to prevent text at the Amsterdam summit that commits us to a merger of the WEU with the European Union. We can see a useful role for the WEU in providing help with peacekeeping and humanitarian missions: we do not see it as a vehicle for the collective defence of western Europe.

Falkland Islands

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his talks with Guido di Talla on the future of the Falklands-Malvinas. [1171]

Mr. Tony Lloyd: My right hon. Friend is finalising the details of proposals for an early meeting at which he intends to discuss matters with the Argentine Foreign Minister to improve our already good relations with that country.

Mr. Dalyell: What will we say about the problem of greedy over-fishing in the south Atlantic?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend will know that it was the policy of the previous Government—as it is of this one—to obtain a fisheries agreement with Argentina. We will certainly raise the issue with the Foreign Minister when he visits London and we will ensure that the Argentines understand that we place a high priority on obtaining such an agreement, which would help conserve stocks, which is in the interests of those who fish from the islands and from Argentina.

Mr. Tom King: In view of recent unhelpful comments from Buenos Aires about the expectations that the Argentine Government have of the new Labour Government, will the Minister take this opportunity to make it clear that there has been no change in policy on the sovereignty of the Falklands from that of the previous Government?

Mr. Lloyd: My answer is a firm yes to that question.

Export Trade

Ms Shipley: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the measures taken in his Department in co-operation with the Department of Trade and Industry to promote Britain's export trade. [1172]

Mr. Robin Cook: The Foreign Office works hand in hand with the Department of Trade and Industry on export promotion. Together, we have established a new export forum which will consider how to improve our export promotion initiatives.

Ms Shipley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, among France, Germany, Italy and ourselves, Britain is the only country to have experienced a fall in its share of exports to the tiger economies and in its share of total world exports?

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes her point tellingly—[Laughter.] I thought that it was superbly researched. It is precisely because of the factors that she described that we made promoting exports and boosting jobs high priorities in our Foreign Office mission statement. I am currently exploring with Lord Simon at the Department of Trade and Industry how we can increase the exchange between business and the Foreign Office to ensure that, both abroad and at home, we have business expertise. I hope to make an announcement before the House rises for the summer on increasing the number of business men on short-term secondments at our posts abroad.

Mr. Baldry: The right hon. Gentleman knows that, excluding Japan, we export more per head of population than any other country in the world. It is, of course, good news that the Foreign Office still intends to promote exports, but how does the right hon. Gentleman intend to reconcile, in many markets, our need to promote exports with the much higher profile to be given to promoting human rights?

Mr. Cook: Of course the hon. Gentleman is right to say that, historically, back into the previous century, Britain has exported a much higher proportion of GDP than many other nations. We have been living off that inheritance, and over the past 10 years the growth in our exports has not been as fast as that of our competitor nations, which have proved more competitive.
Moreover, during that period many of those nations have observed a regard for human rights that outstrips the regard that Britain has shown. I see no contradiction between our twin commitments to ensure that we boost Britain's exports to free economies and its contribution to supporting free

democracies. It is Conservative Members who must explain the £800 million loss that they made by exporting arms and other machinery to Saddam Hussein.

Mr. Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a good sales pitch to have a good human rights record? In the course of his duties, will he do an audit—a proper assessment—of best practice in our outposts around the world? Many of us have experience of our embassies. Some of them in some countries are absolutely excellent, but others are not. I hesitate to name names, but I will mention Berlin, where our embassy is difficult to contact and is hardly ever open to British business men. I hope that we can examine best practice and try to spread it.

Mr. Cook: I hope that our embassy in Berlin will be open in time for the transfer of government. It will be a prestigious building—one of the prime architectural designs of the century. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend made a serious point. He raised an important issue for the many millions of people who work in British exporting industries and made the important point that there may be good practice that succeeds in some embassies which we need to transfer to others. That is one of the reasons we are anxious to take more business men with expertise in the export industries to some of those embassies. They will bring a culture of business application, and share with the diplomats who will remain behind after they have gone the knowledge of what business needs from our posts abroad, so that it can be provided better.

Religious Freedom

Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's policy in respect of freedom of religious practice and expression. [1173]

Mr. Tony Lloyd: We are strongly opposed to religious intolerance and discrimination in any form. The Government are committed to the principles enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights, the international covenant on civil and political rights, the European convention on human rights and the declaration on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I thank the Minister for that response. Does he agree that, where there is intolerance in religious practice, whether in Israel, Saudi Arabia or elsewhere, we shall oppose it, because when people come to this country we allow complete freedom of religious practice and expression—which also includes the right to change?

Mr. Lloyd: I endorse the hon. Gentleman's remarks. We extend freedom of religion to all who seek refuge within these shores. We continue to raise questions of religious intolerance with those who practise it in their countries—and will continue to do just that.

Mr. Corbyn: What pressure can my hon. Friend bring to bear on the Iranian regime to lift the fatwa against Salman Rushdie?

Mr. Lloyd: That is an important question. While we view the election of a new Iranian president with interest, it must be made clear to Iran that any improvement in relations between Britain and Iran will depend greatly on the lifting of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, who is after all a British citizen. Indeed, it is outrageous that the fatwa was issued against him in the first place.
Similarly, Iranian Government operations around the world continue to cause concern, not just in terms of religious intolerance but because of their attacks on the basic human rights of their own citizens and others.

European Parliament

Mr. Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role of the European Parliament. [1174]

Mr. Doug Henderson: We look forward to a close and fruitful relationship with the European Parliament, which has an important legislative function in the EC, particularly in areas that are subject to majority voting in the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Lansley: In the c
oming intergovernmental conference, will the hon. Gentleman resist any extension of powers of co-decision for the European Parliament?

Mr. Henderson: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware from his research background, there are already some such powers. Where there is any extension of qualified majority voting, in many instances we shall be looking for an extension of co-decision.

Mr. Barnes: Why do we not take the high ground in the European Union and argue for fully democratic institutions—including the European Parliament, which should be the fulcrum of democratic activity?

Mr. Henderson: I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a democratic deficit in Europe, partly caused by the Conservative party's inability to elect Members to the European Parliament, so the Conservatives' view is never put. We would welcome an enhanced democratic process in Europe, which is why, in the IGC negotiations, we emphasise the need to extend co-decision in areas of qualified majority voting.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Does the Minister acknowledge that there is great lack of understanding between Members of this House and Members of the European Parliament? If we are to improve our relationships and thereby underpin the democratic process, what is the Government's view of the plan for greater co-operation between Members of this House and of the European Parliament? Surely that would help us to understand one another much better.

Mr. Henderson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is certainly important that the European Parliament liaises closely with national Parliaments. One reason

why, during the IGC negotiations, we have strongly supported moves to improve transparency is to make information more widely available and to enable sensible dialogue to take place between the European Parliament and national Parliaments.

Hong Kong

Mr. Love: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the proposals for the handover ceremony in Hong Kong. [1177]

Mr. Fatchett: The joint handover ceremony between Britain and China in the grand foyer of the new extension to the Hong Kong convention and exhibition centre will begin at about 23.30 hours Hong Kong time on Monday 30 June. The ceremony will be attended by up to 4,000 invited guests, including His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and me.

Mr. Love: In the light of earlier discussion of this issue, will the Government take the opportunity provided by the handover ceremony to discuss with other Governments represented there the importance of a continuing close interest in the affairs of Hong Kong after the ceremony is over?

Mr. Fatchett: I can assure my hon. Friend that the United Kingdom will have a continuing interest in Hong Kong. We have an interest under the joint declaration and through the work of the joint liaison group. We have an economic interest in Hong Kong's continuing success, and a moral and political interest in maintaining human rights and democratic freedoms. The United Kingdom will continue to be an active partner in Hong Kong's future.

Mr. David Davis: Will the Minister clarify whether the Prime Minister will be attending?

Mr. Fatchett: The right hon. Gentleman will know that no decision has yet been taken on my right hon. Friend's attendance. When a decision is made, he will be among the first to be told.

Commonwealth Summit

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the arrangements for the Commonwealth summit in Edinburgh. [1178]

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Arrangements for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh in October are progressing well. We are working closely with the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Scottish Office and local police authorities in Scotland to ensure a successful meeting, which will serve the Government's aim of strengthening the Commonwealth.

Mr. Morgan: If the Government's plans for a Scottish Parliament reach fruition, what role would the Minister see for it in future summits?

Mr. Lloyd: The question of a Scottish Parliament does not as far as I am aware arise in this context; nor will it be on the agenda for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh. I can, however, assure the hon. Gentleman that the meeting will be a successful advertisement both for the Commonwealth and for Edinburgh and the whole of Scotland.

Miss McIntosh: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like to give the Minister for Europe the

opportunity to withdraw his remark that it is impossible for Conservatives to elect Members of the European Parliament. I am living proof that that is not the case.

Madam Speaker: That is barely a point of order. I am aware of the hon. Lady's status, and I recommend the use of Vacher Dod. I think that the Minister should have something to say on that. He should not be churlish in respect of lady Members.

Mr. Doug Henderson: I am grateful, Madam Speaker. I think that I may inadvertently have said impossible; I meant nearly impossible.

Point of Order

Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you have had a request from either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement this afternoon, given that there have been various reports that prescription charges are to be introduced for pensioners.

Madam Speaker: No Minister has informed me of a statement to be made on any issue today.

Orders of the Day — Education (Schools) Bill

Considered in Committee [Progress, 5 June].

[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Clause 2

TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR EXISTING ASSISTED PUPILS

Amendment proposed [5 June], No. 11, in page 2, line 1, to leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. Forth.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

The Chairman of Ways and Means: I remind the Committee that we are also discussing the following amendments: No. 27, in page 2, line 1, after '(2)', insert `Subject to subsection (2A),'.
No. 3, in page 2, line 5, after 'or,' insert—
'b) in the case of a pupil with an assisted place at a school providing education for children up to the age of 13 but not beyond, at the end of the school year in which he attains the age of 13, or '.
No. 34, in page 2, line 5, after 'or', insert—
(a) at the end of the school year in which he completes his education within the school where he was provided with an assisted place; or'.
No. 28, in page 2, line 10, at end insert—
'(2A) Unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the pupil in question will receive secondary education which is comparable to the primary education which he has received in regard to—

(a) its religious content;
(b) the curriculum provided;
(c) opportunities for sport;
(d) size of classes; and
(e) single-sex provision,
he shall determine that that pupil shall continue to hold that place during the period which he receives secondary education.'.
No. 25, in clause 5, page 5, leave out lines 7 to 17.

Mr. Francis Maude: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) moved the amendment in a powerful speech in the small hours of Friday morning. The Committee should not lose sight of what lies behind the amendments. They are neither probing nor wrecking. We will continue to pursue the argument that the Bill is fundamentally bad, that it will destroy and not build and that the Government are mistaken in their determination to ram it through. That, however, is not what the amendments are about.
The amendments are about putting right a grievous wrong and a grievous breach of trust. I confess that, when the Government Chief Whip moved the Adjournment of the Committee in the small hours of Friday morning, I hoped in my naivety that the purpose was to allow Ministers to reconsider the position that they had adopted and to come back to the Committee later say that they accepted the amendments and would agree to our proposals. If the Minister is willing to make it clear that


that is the case, I will gladly sit down, but it appears that the Government have not taken the opportunity of a few days' cool reflection to do that. That is the course of honour, but they have decided not to pursue it.
Why does the amendment matter? Let us remind ourselves what is at stake. The assisted places scheme was properly extended to include children younger under 11. Larger numbers of children now hold assisted places and attend independent junior schools through the benefit of assisted places.

The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): The reason we sought the Adjournment of the House last Thursday was that an agreement had been reached with Conservative Members that today's proceedings would be timetabled and completed at 10 pm.

Mr. Maude: I have no knowledge of any agreements made through the usual channels. If the Minister is threatening another guillotine motion so that the Government can again railroad the Committee, that is a different matter. I had hoped that he was pursuing the course of honour and reconsidering the Government's dishonourable position of seeking to break a pre-election pledge.
I return to my theme. In opposition, the Labour party threatened to abolish the whole scheme. Those engaged in the independent junior sector wrote, as is their entitlement, to the then Labour spokesman to inquire how that would apply to children in independent junior schools who had the benefit of assisted places. The answer they got in the first instance was unclear.
Cautiously and sensibly, the chairman of the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools sought and got clarification. It is not as though the letter that I shall cite was poorly drafted, or dashed off on the back of an envelope. It was a considered letter sent by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), which makes a very specific pledge.
The pledge was essentially that any child in an independent junior school with the benefit of an assisted place would continue to have the benefit of it until the normal age of transfer out of independent junior schools, which is typically 13. For greater accuracy and the avoidance of doubt, I quote the letter, which states:
Much will obviously depend on the school to which the child has been admitted. If a child has a place at a school which runs to age 13. then that place will be honoured through to 13.
I have examined the letter carefully to find whether there are any clues as to why that pledge should not be honoured in the legislation. I found no clues; it is a clear pledge. The only possible clue is that the letter is dated 1 April. The Government may mount the defence that it was an April fool and never meant to be taken seriously.

Mr. Eric Forth: Does my right hon. Friend think that the fact that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) was not appointed to a ministerial position in the Department for Education and Employment suggests that the Government thought that they could, by that sleight-of-hand, slide out of the commitment that he had made on behalf of the Labour party and, therefore, one would assume, the Government? Does my right hon. Friend think that that washes as an excuse?

Mr. Maude: It is not for me to give an explanation. The only inference that we can draw is that the

hon. Member for Walton gave a public pledge, in honour, and that the Government cynically, knowing that the pledge was to be dishonoured, chose to sideline him into the murky depths of the Cabinet Office, where he co-exists with the Minister without Portfolio.

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): On Second Reading, I made it clear on behalf of the Government that we would use discretion if circumstances were appropriate, but that we could not give a carte blanche on the primary or prep school assisted places scheme, which will be introduced from September. We could not say that it would apply universally to people who, presumably before this year's tranche of assisted places, could take up the scheme only from the secondary school point of entry. The hot air that is being described this afternoon and was described into the early hours of last Friday morning is, frankly, bizarre given the key pledges that we have made, on the record, about protecting the interests of those children who were in assisted places—I stress the word "were"—through to this summer.

Mr. Maude: I will come to that, because I intend to deal with what the right hon. Gentleman said on Second Reading. It is important and demands to be considered in detail.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Clearly, this is a matter of concern. The Secretary of State said that discretion would be used. I wonder whether he has any comment on a letter that I have here from the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett) to a Mrs. Brookes in connection with the education of her son, aged 10. This letter is dated 27 February and states:
You were rightly concerned about possible disruption to your child's education. David Blunkett's office have confirmed that Labour will honour those existing places which have already been given. Your child will not be forced to move school.
I assume that that is one child in respect of whom discretion has already been exercised.

Mr. Maude: Time will tell. It is important for the Committee to hear the different ways in which the pledge has already been given, so that it can judge the extent of the breach of trust that we are talking about.

Mr. James Clappison: Before the Secretary of State gets too far away with trying to fudge that pledge, may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to what is said in the letter that was sent out to head teachers about the extent of the discretion to which the Secretary of State referred? That letter states:
There is provision for the Secretary of State to exercise limited discretion to extend support under the scheme in exceptional circumstances.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is not much of a fig leaf there?

Mr. Maude: Again, I will discuss the way in which the Secretary of State sought on Second Reading and today to justify that breach of trust. My hon. Friend makes exactly the right point. The terms in which that pledge was put in a letter shows that the discretion will not be wide ranging. The fact that it will be used in "exceptional circumstances" shows exactly the reverse.

Mr. Blunkett: I object strongly to the notion that there has already been a breach of trust when the measure has not


yet been implemented. I must make it clear to the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have some respect, that the pledges on the incoming prep and primary school assisted places, which the outgoing Government forced through the House, and the old secondary school places, which assured people—perfectly reasonably in my view—that we would not take away their places under that pre-dated scheme, are being combined.
The two are being put together, and hon. Members are trying to make an intellectual case that anyone taking up a place from September, prior to the age of 11 and going through to 13, should automatically be able to carry it forward. One cannot have it both ways—one cannot retrospectively pick up a pre-11 situation that did not exist and apply it to the secondary school level.

Mr. Maude: This will not do. The Secretary of State has spoken kindly of me and I shall return the compliment. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman is a dishonourable man, and I do not believe that he would deliberately put his reputation as a man of honour at stake. I urge him, even at this stage, to take the provision away to think about it. I regret to have to tell the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman is wriggling; he is seeking to disentangle himself from a pledge made in the clearest possible terms.
The Government did not have to make that pledge; they could have justified their position by saying, "No, we are sorry. If your child has an assisted place at a junior school, it must finish at 11; we do not care if that causes you hardship or if it disrupts plans that you as parents have made—that is just tough." That would have been a harsh decision, but it would have been an honourable position to have taken. It is dishonourable to have made the pledge in such specific terms and then to break it.
I urge the Secretary of State to turn his mind to the matter. The words are not capable of misinterpretation. The pledge was made in the plainest terms and, in the plainest terms, the legislation breaches it.
I shall return in a moment to the way in which the Secretary of State unsuccessfully sought to disentangle himself from the pledge on Second Reading.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what we are seeing is proof positive that the Labour party was prepared to promise anything and to tell people what they wanted to hear before the election, only to break the promises within a few weeks? We could not trust what the Labour party said before the election; in government, they are breaking their promises very quickly.

Mr. Maude: We Conservatives raise the issue much more in sorrow than in anger, although anger is amply justified. I shall return to the general point that my hon. Friend raised, as it is important and goes to the heart of the basis on which the Government were elected.
I shall now turn to the way in which the Secretary of State sought to extricate himself on Second Reading. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) asked a question that went to the core of the debate and the amendments. He said:
Why is the Secretary of State going back on that pledge in clause 2 and finishing education at the age of 11? Is it not the clearest example of a breach of promise?

The Secretary of State replied using terms similar to those that he has used today. He said:
I am very clear, and so is the Bill, that assisted places will remain in primary education up to the normal age of transfer at 11. Where an alternative transfer age applies in that area, the Secretary of State will have discretion, and my ministerial team and I will use it wisely to ensure that we do not have a situation where 500,000 youngsters transfer at 11, but other people think that they can transfer at 13, even if 13 is not the normal transferable age in that locality."—[Official Report, 2 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 27.]
It is abundantly clear from what the Secretary of State said then, from what he has said today and from the letter that the Department has sent out and from which my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere quoted a little earlier, that the Government have no intention of using the discretion contained in the Bill to give effect to the pledge made before the election.
If there is an interpretation to be put on what the Secretary of State said, it is that, where the state system of education in a particular locality allows for the transfer of children aged 12 from a middle school to a secondary school, as happens in some areas, discretion may be used to allow the assisted place to continue until age 12. We welcome that measure, which we think is a good one, but we think that it should not be left to discretion. The Secretary of State and his team invite us to place our trust in their wisdom and discretion. The Secretary of State may ask us to trust him, but we may not feel as disposed to do so as we did before this legislation.

Mr. Tim Boswell: I come fresh to the debate on the amendment, and it seems to me that the Secretary of State's remarks about the normal age of transfer must mean the age of transfer within the state sector only and have no relevance to the normal arrangements for transfer of primary and secondary school children in the private sector. Is that my right hon. Friend's interpretation?

Mr. Maude: Even when the words are examined carefully and in the most generous and charitable way, they bear no interpretation other than that which my hon. Friend places on them. However they are interpreted, they are bleakly at odds with the clear terms of Labour's pre-election pledge—what I might call the Walton pledge—which was given, somewhat ironically, on 1 April. We have clearly established that the Bill breaches that pledge.
It is also clear, and the silence of Ministers amplifies it, that the modest discretion in the Bill is not intended to be used to give effect in any meaningful sense to that pledge. The Government stand indicted, and, unless they move swiftly to rescue their reputation, they will stand convicted, of a grave breach of trust.
Labour made many reckless promises before the election which will be found increasingly difficult to keep, because they are contradictory in so many ways. The Government have made so many contradictory promises to so many groups that at some stage those contradictions will fall to be resolved and will be found incapable of resolution.
However, I do not think that the Government would, without reason and so early in their life, put their reputation so recklessly at risk. Therefore, we must seek an explanation of why the Government should so quickly go back on their word and so lamely attempt to defend it. The explanation lies at the heart of another contradiction between the pledges.
The justification for the Bill is that the savings from phasing out the assisted places scheme will be used to pay for reducing infant class sizes. As the Committee knows, we have questioned that and we think that the sums are nowhere near right. Much of the independent research confirms our view that the figures, as often happens with the Government's figures, simply do not add up. When we probe this sorry little saga, we find that the Government themselves are beginning to realise that the sums do not add up. They are beginning to see that they will not even get close to the savings they need from abolishing the assisted places scheme to pay for the reduction in class sizes that they promised.
What do the Government do about that? As so often, they go on the grab. They think, "Where else can we grab some money? Where can we find a soft target who will not complain too much and will not be able to fight back and defend himself? We shall go for the 11 and 12-year-olds who have the benefit of assisted places. What do promises matter? We shall get the extra savings in future years by grabbing back those assisted places."
Those places were given and accepted in good faith, but it seems not to matter that children's education was planned on the basis of the scheme, which was reinforced by Labour pledges when the party was in opposition. That matters nothing, and the Government will push it to one side because there is a little more money to be grabbed to try to make their figures add up.
I suspect that that was the reasoning in the minds of Ministers. That is why they have gone down the path of callously ignoring the pledge and disappointing the hopes and plans of real people. This is not a technical or academic argument; this is about people and children at a vulnerable age—children, almost by definition, from less advantaged homes, because if they were not from such homes, they would not be in receipt of an assisted place to begin with—whose hopes are being dashed cruelly and cynically.
I invite any of my right hon. and hon. Friends to volunteer an explanation as to why the Government should expose themselves to the contempt not only of the Committee but of the country by behaving in this way. It must be no more than this: the Government have realised what we have been telling them for so long—the sums do not add up. They will not be able to deliver the reduction in class sizes through the Bill and, therefore, they have used this provision in clause 2 to grab back a bit more and to go beyond what they said they would do. Frankly, nothing that we have heard goes any way to justify it.
Therefore, we have to look a little beyond the provision and make a case which I hope appeals to the decency in Ministers. I hope that the Committee will join Conservative Members in urging Ministers to take the provision away, even at this late stage, reconsider it and find out whether they can do a little to rehabilitate their reputation.
If the Prime Minister had applied his mind to the issue, he would be urging Ministers to do the same. He has made many remarks about trust and promises. If he understood that this saga was going on and that this breach of trust had taken place, I feel sure that he would intervene. Let us consider just what the Prime Minister said in the Loyal Address debate. Talking about the difference between the Labour Government and the Conservative party, he said:
There will be one other difference. This Government will keep their promises.

He went on to say—recklessly, the Committee may think:
Conservative Members find that an extraordinary proposition."—[Official Report, 14 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 62.]
Well, we certainly do now, given that the first opportunity Ministers have to deliver on a promise, they break it. But it is not just on that that I rest my case and urge Ministers to take this provision away and redeem their reputation—or, failing that, that I urge the Committee to accept the amendments and restore some decency to the Bill. On 1 May, as reported in The Independent, the Prime Minister said:
The promises we have made are specific".
I add in parenthesis: what could be more specific than the Walton pledge in the letter? He went on:
and if we deliver on these, then I think we are entitled to trust. If we do not deliver on those, then we'll not be.
If Ministers do not respond positively to the amendments, they will have broken their promises, they will have betrayed the trust that has been put in them and their reputations will have been irredeemably damaged.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) bandied about the words "breach of trust" and "promise". I say to my Front-Bench team that our biggest, most important promise was that we would use the funds that would arise from the Bill to lower primary class sizes in state schools. There would certainly be a breach of trust if we accepted the amendments, as funds would be less likely to be obtained for schools. There is a straight difference of values and priorities.

Mr. Peter Luff: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rowlands: I have scarcely started. The right hon. Member for Horsham developed his case at length.
I want briefly to say that, in relation to values and priority, there could be no greater contrast than that between the speech of the right hon. Member for Horsham and the one that I am about to make on behalf of schools in my constituency.

Mr. Maude: I am encouraged—well, discouraged really, but at least the hon. Gentleman is being honest about it. He admits that the reason for the provision is to grab back a little more money. What he is also saying is a little more bothersome: if the Government keep one promise, it does not matter if they break another one. That is exactly the point that we are making: they have made contradictory promises.

Mr. Rowlands: I am about to tell the right hon. Gentleman why I support the Bill, and why I shall vote against the amendment. I want to contrast the schools that I suspect he has been describing with a school in my area, whose current position illustrates the problems that face our community here and now. Parents, governors, children and teachers involved with primary schools in our community will face problems in September—

Mr. Luff: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

4 pm

Mr. Rowlands: No. I want to answer the case put by the right hon. Member for Horsham.
Let me describe to the Committee, and to Ministers in particular, what is happening to Cwmsyfiog primary school at this moment. The core group of governors are having to make decisions. They will have to sack, or lose, one member of the teaching staff. The school's 1996–97 resources budget is to be cut from £5,000 to zero, which means that there will be no money to spend on learning resources—not a penny. I wonder how many schools that Opposition Members have described—schools that they say will be affected by the Bill, and will have problems—face a nil increase in learning resources, or a learning resources budget of nil.
The core group will also have to cut the supply teacher budget by a further £2,000. The consequences of the reduction in the school's resources have been described vividly. Class sizes will rise: there will be 35 children in class III. I want to make this point to Ministers. While we hope that, at some future date, the Bill will provide resources that will make it possible to reduce primary school class sizes, we currently face the prospect of rising class sizes this September, and no doubt the following September. Ministers must address the crisis facing primary schools now and in the next year, before the provision of any funds that may derive from the Bill.

Mr. Forth: We note the hon. Gentleman's apparent support for the Bill. Is he aware that the Minister for School Standards, the hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), said in earlier debates—it is one of the few things he did say—that he did not expect any significant savings to result from the Bill, and hence did not expect any improvements in class sizes, until the year 2000? What has the hon. Gentleman to say about that?

Mr. Rowlands: That is the point that I am making. I welcome the resources that will be transferred: that will be a sensible redistribution of public finance and expenditure to support schools that are in desperate need, such as Cwmsyfiog primary school.

Mr. Luff: rose—

Mr. Rowlands: I am answering the point made by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
What I am saying to Ministers is that the crisis is hitting us now, before those resources become available, because of the local government settlement made by the previous Government, which left education in smaller primary schools in a dreadful plight. I am describing to Ministers the problems that are arising now, in the hope that the funds will be provided as soon as possible and will not be further eroded by the host of amendments proposed by Opposition Members. If those amendments were accepted, the amounts would be less, and, I suspect, would take longer to reach primary schools such as Cwmsyfiog.
When Ministers deal with the White Paper that they are to publish, they will have to address the present crisis in our primary schools. That is a simple point, and it is my reason for opposing the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and others.

Mr. Clappison: I listened with interest to the comments by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who spoke with some passion about a school in his constituency whose name I will not begin to attempt to pronounce. I appreciate that he and, no doubt, his constituents feel passionately about their schools, but I must say that I found his logic somewhat surprising.
He seemed to be saying that the only way in which the Government, with their massive majority, could honour their commitments and pledges to the hon. Gentleman's constituents was by breaking promises that they had made to others. I find that a hard line of argument to follow from this all-powerful Government, with their massive majority and their ability to do as they wish within the purview of policy in education.

Mr. Peter Brooke: In as far as the hon. Member for Merthyzr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) was replying to the charge made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), one derived from his speech the impression that, under new Labour, the end will always justify the means.

Mr. Clappison: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Notwithstanding my recent remarks, I do not want to be confrontational about this, because we understand that that is no longer the mode in which we should behave, and I am very concerned about being non-confrontational, being helpful and honouring promises, all of which, I understand, are important attributes and considerations of the present Government.
In the spirit of the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), I say that I hope that the Minister can think carefully about this, listen to the arguments and accept that it is a straightforward question of honouring a promise.
We have debated other aspects on Second Reading and in Committee, but the group of amendments that we are debating raises wider considerations than support for, or opposition to, the idea of assisted places. Even hon. Members who do not support the idea of assisted places will feel uneasy about those issues and may well wish to support the amendments, because this is very much a question of honouring promises.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) set the scene very effectively when the Bill was last considered in Committee, and dealt with the documentary evidence that is of concern in this case, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham has done. The key element is the promise that was made in the letter on 1 April—"the Walton promise", as it has been termed—by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), who was then the shadow Minister with responsibility for schools. He made that promise on 1 April to the chairman of the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools—a shadow Minister, speaking about policy to the chairman of an important organisation, representing many children in preparatory education.
As has been made clear, there can be no way of quibbling over or fudging the terms in which the letter was phrased. The promise, freely given, is specific:
If a child has a place at a school which runs to age 13, then that place will be honoured through to 13.


That is about as specific a promise as one could possibly have, and it is clearly given.
A parent, reading of or hearing of that promise through the chairman of the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools, would think, "There is not much room for doubt there; I can act in reliance on that promise."

Mr. Boswell: Does my hon. Friend recall the remarks made by the, sadly late, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, who was in his time the hon. Member for Liverpool, Huyton—not far from Walton? He once referred to something said in the House being not merely a lightly given promise, but a pledge. Should we not view the remark in the letter as being in that category?

Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend is right. It can be seen only as a pledge. It was given to the chairman of a large organisation, at an important time—1 April, only a few weeks before the general election—it related to a matter that had been the subject of considerable correspondence and discussion, which was of great interest to the chairman of the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools, and it is about as clear as it could possibly be.
It would not be entirely surprising if parents acted on that pledge, regarding it as a cast-iron guarantee. Indeed, we understand from a later letter to the Secretary of State by the chairman of the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools, complaining about what had taken place, that several parents may well have acted on it. The chairman quotes the words of the pledge given in the letter:
if a child has a place at a school which runs to 13 then that place will be honoured through to 13
and continues:
On that basis we, in common with a large number of Preparatory schools, have offered places to 7 and 11-year—olds and although we have warned parents that the Assisted Place will terminate when their child is aged 13, we did not, of course, sound any cautionary note about termination at age 11.
Parents will have expected those places to be available for their children to age 13, because they had a cast-iron pledge from the Labour party that they would be available.
I remind Ministers that, after relying on the words and pledge of the Labour party, many parents made an important decision about their children's future education. Abolition of assisted places is a very serious subject for those parents. I invite the Minister to direct his attention to the issue and to realise its seriousness for those parents. I share those parents' concerns, because there are many assisted places in my constituency.
I appreciate that part of the Labour party's manifesto was elimination of the assisted places scheme, and I noticed that the scheme's abolition was one of the principal elements of the Queen's Speech. Therefore, on 15 May 1997, during the debate on the Loyal Address, I asked the Secretary of State for Education and Employment about Labour's pledge.
The Secretary of State gave no hint that any such breach of pledge would occur, and I was fortified and reassured by his words and by his attitude to assisted places and to the children in them. He said:
During the general election campaign, I said that children who have been allocated places will be permitted to take them up. We shall legislate within weeks to ensure that schools do not abuse the licence that was given to them to look after the interests of children by agreeing to places for 1998 or 1999 onwards. The hallmark of

this Government will be to put children before dogma. It will be to ensure that the interests of our children come first on every occasion."—[Official Report, 15 May 1997; Vol. 294. c. 183.]
One week later, we discovered that those sentiments do not apply to the 2,000 or so children who have received assisted places to age 13. When I read the Bill and an accompanying letter of guidance to headmasters in schools offering assisted places, I was surprised to find that places would not be available to 13 but would end at 11. My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham was right to mention the response that I received from the Secretary of State in the debate on the Bill's Second Reading. The Secretary of State said:
I am very clear, and so is the Bill, that assisted places will remain in primary education up to the normal age of transfer at 11. Where an alternative transfer age applies in that area, the Secretary of State will have discretion, and my ministerial team and I will use it wisely to ensure that we do not have a situation where 500,000 youngsters transfer at 11, but other people think that they can transfer at 13, even if 13 is not the normal transferable age in that locality. It would not do the children a favour if we pretended that we could do that. Discretion is the better part of valour, and we will use it wisely."—[Official Report, 2 June 1992; Vol. 295, c. 27.]
If one reads the words in the Department's letter to headmasters alongside the Secretary of State's words about his discretion and how he will use it wisely, it becomes clear that—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham quite properly and appropriately said—that discretion will be very limited. The letter describes
limited discretion to extend support under the scheme in exceptional circumstances".
That limited discretion apparently will apply only when the normal transfer age in the state sector is 13 and there is a system of middle schools. The discretion will therefore apply only to a very narrow range of pupils, and it demonstrates a great diminution of the Government's unconditional pledge to all children in assisted places that should last to age 13.
I have studied the Secretary of State's words in the Second Reading debate, and I appreciate the reason that he gave for his decision. The question, however, is one not so much of the reasons of the Secretary of State—or of whoever took the decision—in making the decision, but of whether the decision was justified. People who break promises have reasons for doing so, and the question is whether they are justified in doing so. In studying this decision, I find it very hard to find any possible justification for the Secretary of State's proposals.
Is it the case that, since 1 April, circumstances have arisen which have made it impossible for the Secretary of State to carry out the pledge he gave? That is not the case. Is there any change at all in the circumstances? No. Have facts come to light which were not known to the Labour party when it gave the pledge and which put quite a different complexion on matters? No. That is an important point, because all the factors that the Secretary of State has given as reasons for not honouring the pledge were ones that he and his colleagues must have known of when the pledge was given on 1 April. Nothing new has come to light; these are all matters that are well known to the Government.
I am sure that, for the Minister of State, who has long experience of education, these matters are ABC matters. He and his team would have been perfectly well aware of all the circumstances when the decision was made on 1 April and when the pledge was given. If they knew of


those matters then and decided to go ahead and give the pledge, they should now keep it, because there is no justification for not doing so.
4.15 pm
Since the Secretary of State spoke on 2 June, some discretion seems to have been used by him. Indeed, he seems to have taken at face value his comment about discretion being the better part of valour because he used his discretion when the head of the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools wrote to him by not responding to the letter. He left it to a civil servant to respond. I will not go into what the civil servant said in that letter; I think that it is gobbledegook and does not take the matter any further. The original letter was written to the Secretary of State and I am a bit surprised—I do not want to criticise the Secretary of State too much because I am trying to get him and the Minister of State on my side-that he was not prepared to reply to it himself.
Before the election, the Labour party and its spokesmen were keen to correspond and communicate with those whose children were in independent education. I understand that the hon. Member for Walton—I give him credit for this—attended the conference of the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools. He wrote numerous letters to that organisation on matters that might be of concern to it and he even wrote an article for one of the independent school's magazines, which was headed "Now is the opportunity to build bridges and forget the divisions". I do not want to be too confrontational, but I must say that all that has happened so far is that the Labour party, through the Bill, has created divisions and forgotten its promises. That is what this amounts to.
When the Minister of State wound up the debate on Second Reading, he chose to ignore the matter altogether. No doubt the Secretary of State would say that he was using his discretion wisely. The hon. Member for Walton, the then shadow Minister, who made the original promise, has been moved on to other things. The Secretary of State does not want to answer correspondence on the matter. The Minister of State tries to ignore it altogether when he speaks in the House. We see at an early stage in this Government's life a decision that has become an orphan, one of those unfortunate decisions by Government which travel from in-tray to in-tray without anyone wanting to take responsibility for them. It is a sad little decision and it is sad that it should have been made so early in the life of this Government.
It is incumbent on Labour Members and particularly on Ministers to accept that there is a question of trust and promise. The promise was given in the clearest possible terms to the low-income parents of 2,000 or so children who were very concerned about their future and who wanted to make the best decision for them. Those parents will be very interested by the approach taken by Ministers on this occasion.
I must say to the Under-Secretary of State that parents will not want to hear too much of the refrain we heard the other evening—that we are the many and they are the few, so we can do what we like. That refrain should not be used on this occasion. I would like Ministers to look again at the matter and to show that they can be flexible. I would

also like them to show that on the important matter of honouring promises, they are prepared to face up to their responsibilities.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham was right when he referred to the Prime Minister's words. Those words about trust and keeping promises stand in contrast with what the Government propose to do now. Surely the amendments give the Government an opportunity to find a way out of the dilemma in which they have got themselves. It should not take too much for the Government, riding high, with their massive majority and enormous power, to stop and think about honouring pledges made to a few parents from low-income families. Surely the Government have the wisdom, discretion and sense to recognise their plight.
It is an important issue, and I hope that the Government will not act in a confrontational way, but use their discretion and their power. I hope that they will reconsider the matter and show that they are sensitive to keeping promises to parents who regard the education of their children as, in the Secretary of State's words, of paramount importance.

Mr. Phil Willis: I begin by saying that the Liberal Democrats support amendment No. 3 and, with your indulgence, Sir Alan, we will call for a separate vote on it.
Given the enormous amount of rhetoric that we have heard from Conservative Members, it seems incredible that they did not manage to table one sensible, composite amendment. Instead, on Thursday they chose to spend the entire evening filibustering so that we could not have a sensible debate on the key issues.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Willis: No. I have only just begun my speech.

Mr. Luff: On a point of order, Sir Alan. Can you confirm that the Bill is likely to make substantially faster progress in the House than it would have in Standing Committee and to accuse us of filibustering is a remarkable and possibly disorderly suggestion?

The Chairman: I cannot imagine that any of my colleagues in the Chair during the proceedings on Thursday would have allowed any conduct of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We shall make more progress if we get on with the substantial points.

Mr. Willis: I humbly apologise for the use of the term "filibustering". Perhaps it just took an incredibly long time for Conservative Members to speak.
On Thursday, the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) referred to my involvement in education. I thank him for his kind remarks and I return the compliment. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has a great commitment to seeing the Bill squashed and particular aspects of it reversed.
Oddly enough, I rise today in support of his amendment, but I do so with an extremely heavy heart. One of my principal desires in coming to the House was to redress some of the damage that the previous Government had inflicted on state education through their pernicious attacks based almost entirely on dogma and


division. Having listened to some of the seven-hour debate on Thursday, and having heard Conservative Members arguing in defence of a scheme that, in many ways, was the very embodiment of the divisions of the past 18 years, I am now placed in the invidious position of having to warn the present Government against making the same mistakes.
Indeed, my party supports the amendment because we want to put an end to injustice based on division. If the amendment is not carried today, that legacy of division and mistrust will continue. If the Government insist on ending the assisted places scheme for all children at the age of 11, they will stand accused, quite rightly in our view, of placing dogma before reason and expediency before compassion.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Given his previous experience in education, does he agree that the only important issue is continually raising standards? Does he consider that the Bill does anything at all to raise standards in the state education system?

Mr. Willis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to confirm that, over the past 18 years, the previous Government made a pernicious attack on state education in the name of standards. When Conservative Members attack the Government for the pernicious way in which they have introduced the Bill, that seems to be perfectly okay, but when the compliment is reversed by those of us who are committed to state education and not private, independent education, we are told that we are quite ridiculous.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Willis: No, I will not.
I am dismayed that Conservative Members, who spoke so eloquently on Thursday and put on such mock shows of outrage and injustice, failed to recognise that the assisted places scheme did absolutely nothing for the vast majority of Britain's children, particularly when resources were in such short supply. What logic is there in an argument that states a desire to raise standards for all, yet deliberately sets out to disadvantage those in the greatest need by removing resources from them? Yet, that is exactly what the assisted places policy did and why it is monstrous for hon. Members to try to continue to justify such an unjustifiable policy.
Earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) spoke of his experience during the election campaign of hundreds of people rushing up to him to express their anguish at the possible ending of the assisted places scheme. I did not have that experience once.
What I did encounter in virtually every household where there was a school-aged child was a deep concern that further Government cuts would mean yet larger primary school classes, yet further delays in urgent building repairs, yet more need for parental contributions to music and swimming lessons and the purchase of text books, and the cancellation of capital programmes.

That is what they were concerned about and what they rushed up to me to talk about—not the ending of the assisted places scheme.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The only person who came to me during the election campaign to raise anxieties about the assisted places scheme was someone who asked whether their child would be able to remain in the scheme until the age of 13, which is the transfer age and the objective of the amendment that my hon. Friend is supporting.

Mr. Willis: I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention.
The assisted places scheme is not an issue in my constituency because we have an education system in which every school is a good school, where every school achieves at or above national standards, and where every school has rejected the siren calls of the previous Secretary of State to opt out and cause further division. We want high quality, high-value-added education for all, not simply a few.
Yes, we have two excellent independent schools, which have a total of 71 assisted places. Their examination results are on a par with the comprehensives, and their sporting and music traditions are also strong. Indeed, apart from two key components, they offer a comparable standard of education to the state comprehensives. The first is that in neither of the two independent schools—we have not heard this mentioned once in the debate—does one find one special educational needs pupil on an assisted place. Yet, in the six comprehensives, there are 854 such pupils.
The second factor is the element of grant that is received from the state—

The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I ought to point out that he is making a rather general speech, whereas we are discussing specific amendments, which, as I understood it, he particularly wished to support and to which his right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) sought elegantly to guide him back. May I recommend that he follows that guidance?

Mr. Willis: As always, Sir Alan, I am grateful for your guidance. As a new hon. Member, I was modelling myself on Conservative Members.

Mr. Maude: On a point of order, Sir Alan. It is reasonable for the Chairman and Conservative Members to take strong exception to that remark. We have been at pains to address ourselves properly to the amendments under debate. If we had not done so, you and your colleagues in the Chair would have brought us up short.

The Chairman: I do not think that we are out of order. The point has registered that we should make progress on the specific matter of the amendment. Then the whole Committee would be more satisfied.

Mr. Willis: I am grateful for your guidance, Sir Alan. I am trying to balance the amendment with the overall structure that the Government are trying to address through the Bill.
When he paid me his compliment on 2 May, the hon. Member for Hertsmere might not have known that I had just finished a 34-year teaching career, all spent in state schools in some of the most deprived areas of Leeds and Middlesbrough. For the last 20 years of that career, I was a head teacher and for the last 13, I was head teacher of John Smeaton community high school—a comprehensive school in the constituency of Leeds, East.
That school served one of the most disadvantaged areas of Leeds, where unemployment was twice the average for the city, with a particular problem among 16 to 25-year-olds. Approximately one child in three came from a lone-parent family and housing stock was relatively poor, but the school was oversubscribed, with excellent reports, no failing teachers and a dedicated, committed staff. Many of the parents of children at that school could not spell assisted places scheme, let alone use it. Very few students from one of the most deprived areas of east Leeds attended private schools on assisted places.
Those students are failing not because they lack dedicated teachers or caring homes, but because they live in a spiral of deprivation—a legacy of 18 years of Tory education policy. They need high-quality early years education. They need a real commitment to reducing primary school class sizes, because teachers working with children already damaged by their social environment at the age of five need to be able to give high levels of personal contact—the contact that preparatory schools give to many children.
The Liberal Democrats would like more than the money from the assisted places scheme spent on redressing the balance. I know that Ministers would dearly love to have the £2 million a year that the Liberal Democrats would have put at the disposal of the Department, but the measure is a start.

Mr. Luff: Two billion.

Mr. Willis: Two billion. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his alacrity.
Despite my party's desire for the assisted places scheme to go quickly, we must not take advantage of a group of children, sacrificing them on the altar of expediency. The Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations 1996 extended the assisted places scheme to junior departments of independent schools. Of the 850 places, 790 were taken up in 1996–97. Many such schools teach to the age of 13. It would be morally unjustifiable to remove those children in the middle of their education and return them to the state sector.

Mr. David Heath: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a further complication in local education authorities that operate a middle school system? In those areas, children will be put back into the system halfway through what would have been their middle school career. Does my hon. Friend agree that that should be addressed in the Bill?

Mr. Willis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is difficult for the Library to obtain up-to-date figures. In 1995, 33 local education authorities—virtually one in

three—had middle school systems. In the Minister's constituency, there are at least two different ages of transfer. Children in preparatory schools would find it difficult because their education would be halted at the age of 11 and they would have to rejoin the state system, not at the beginning, but in the middle of a different tier and a different style of education. That is unacceptable.
Section 2 of the Education Act 1997 allowed independent primary schools that were not attached to independent secondary schools to offer some 600 assisted places. Those places have been largely allocated for 1997–98. It would not be fair or just to allow those children in preparatory schools to be taken out of their education in midstream.
The point made by the shadow Minister about the oral and written commitments made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) to the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools was well made, and I do not wish to repeat it. However, it adds considerable weight to the arguments for the amendments. It must be wrong for a shadow Minister to promise one thing in opposition and then for his colleagues to renege when in power. We saw enough of that under the previous Administration, and we do not want to see it again.
The Secretary of State for Education and Employment, in his opening remarks to the House on 2 June, tried to address that point when he made his famous statement:
Discretion is the better part of valour, and we will use it wisely."—[Official Report, 2 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 27]
Unlike many Opposition Members, I believe that the Secretary of State will use his judgment wisely. The amendments seek to remove the shadow of concern from parents by making the appropriate changes to the Bill. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendments and demonstrate that, unlike with the previous Administration, all children come first with the Government.

Mr. Luff: I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) on his latter remarks. He is right to express the hope that the discretion available to the Government under the Bill will be used wisely. We know that it will not be the Secretary of State for Education and Employment who exercises the discretion; in practice, it is likely to be the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris). She can be relied upon to use her discretion wisely, and I hope that she will prove that when she responds to the debate on the amendments.
It is a shame that we are considering the amendments and moving to the Report stage later today. Issues are raised by the amendments that do not conflict with the principles that guide the Government in their consideration of the Bill. They could usefully reflect on those issues and come back to the House with sensibly worded amendments. I understand that the Government cannot accept the amendments, because of drafting errors. That is often the case with Opposition amendments. I have sat on the other side of the Chamber and witnessed sensible amendments tabled by the Labour party in opposition that we could not accept because they were badly drafted. I accept that the amendments may have technical problems, but I cannot see any reason why the spirit that lies behind many of the amendments cannot be accepted by the Government.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough made a powerful and unanswerable case on the specific issue of transfers at age 13. The hon. Gentleman chastised us for speaking at length earlier in proceedings on the Bill. I cannot speak for my hon. Friends—although I hope that they have the same experience as myself—but I spoke on the amendments because I genuinely care about them. The Bill is being passed very speedily and I hope that the Minister will consider our arguments later, when she reads the Official Report. I understand that she will not be able to respond positively today, but I hope that detailed consideration will be given to our amendments in another place. They raise the most important issues of trust without interfering with the principle that guides the Government.
I spoke twice last week on the Bill and I made no secret of the fact that I think it is a bad Bill. It is misguided and I do not believe that it will save money. It will not achieve what the Government want it to achieve; rather, it will damage the education system and bring no benefit. However, I am faced with the challenge of mitigating its worst effects, and I believe that the amendments would achieve that.
The speeches that we have heard so far have mostly concentrated on the issue of transfer at age 13. I am not aware of any individuals in my constituency who are affected by that matter, although I suspect that there are some. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough teased me about the "hundreds" of parents who approached me on the general matter raised by the Bill. There were not hundreds, but it may have run into double figures—[HON. MEMBERS: "Twelve?"] I would not like to give an exact number, but it was well into double figures. That is quite a lot of people to raise a matter on the doorstep during an election campaign.
There are specific individuals in my constituency who are touched by the issues raised by the amendments; so I speak from a hard realistic point of view, not a hypothetical one, about individuals who will be badly affected if that aspect of the Bill is passed unamended.
I shall address in particular the transfer at the age of 11 from primary education into the so-called secondary sector, because that is the issue that touches individuals in my constituency. As I have said before, although the schools affected lie not in my constituency but in Worcester, many of the parents of children who attend them come from my Mid-Worcestershire constituency.
A characteristic of those schools is the strong link between their primary and secondary provision. For example, one of them has a shared Department for Education and Employment number and sees itself as one school, which children join at seven and leave at 18. It is organised in two separate units, with two head teachers, but it sees itself as a continuum, and seeks to encourage its pupils to see their position within the school in the same spirit.
That fact has important implications for the amendments. The encouragement of such a spirit makes a valuable contribution to the life of a school. Another Worcester school that the children of my constituents attend transfers pupils a year early from the primary school—that is, from the physical primary facility—to the secondary school. The children regard themselves as part of the secondary school at the age of 10 rather than 11.
I know about that, because my daughter attends the school and has made that transfer. When the children move across, they feel part of the secondary school a year early. I strongly suspect, although I do not know for sure, that the same considerations exist elsewhere—DFEE numbers, and so on, and certainly the encouragement of one spirit across the school, and the strong bonds of loyalty between the two separate units.
The issues involved are more complex than the Government realised when they drafted that part of the Bill. That is why I hope that they will respond positively, at least in tone, to the amendments. Integration of primary and secondary facilities in the schools is important, and deserves to be taken seriously by the Government.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) spoke about the "Walton promise", and quoted from a letter. I have not seen the letter, but I heard what he said, and he made a powerful case. Moreover, head teachers from the schools that I have mentioned tell me that, at the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools national conference in September 1996, they heard similar comments by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), who is now the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, but was then a shadow education spokesman.
4.45 pm
The head teachers cannot provide me with an exact copy of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but they are quite clear about the implication that he encouraged them to draw from what he said—that assisted places would be honoured for their lifetime. That means that, when a child goes to a preparatory school, the assisted place lasts the whole time the child is at that school. That relates to the question about 13-year-olds raised by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough.
The head teachers were also clear about the fact that, in schools that regarded themselves as single entities—one school in effect and, indeed, legally—assisted places would be honoured for their lifetime, from seven to 18. That is what they believed the hon. Member for Walton was saying last September.
I do not believe that accepting the principle behind the amendments would be a huge problem for the Government. The numbers involved are modest and time-limited. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said that he passionately believed that the amendments would strike at the primary school in his constituency that was suffering so badly, in its efforts to improve. I am sorry to hear about that suffering, but I sought to intervene to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he knew exactly what the cost implications would be if the Government accepted the principle behind the amendments.
I suspect that the sums are very small, and that by the time they are shared out throughout the whole state primary sector, they will be nugatory—almost non-existent. I believe that the savings that could be made by the whole Bill will be much smaller than the Government claim, and I have tabled a question seeking clarification on the matter.

Mr. Forth: You'll be lucky.

Mr. Luff: My right hon. Friend on the Front Bench thinks that I will be lucky to get an answer. Certainly that


has been a characteristic of questions asked about the Bill—and that is one of the factors that makes scrutiny of it, in the dreadful rush that the Government have inflicted on us, so difficult.
I believe that the overall savings will be small, but the savings made by not accepting the amendments must be tiny. I asked one of the schools in my constituency how many assisted places it had, and the answer was that five had been awarded for seven and eight-year-olds in September 1996, and another five had been awarded for this September. In the case of that school, those places will be honoured through to the age of 11 and then scrapped.
I cannot believe that those numbers will be replicated across the country at anything like that level, because the schools concerned happen to have a long tradition of state provision. One was a direct grant school and another a grammar school. In effect, they were almost in the state sector; one literally was a state school.
Those schools tend to attract rather more assisted place applicants, because in the community they serve they are seen as state schools—glorified state schools, possibly, but none the less state schools—and many parents aspire to send their children there. The numbers involved are therefore likely to be at the top end of the spectrum, yet they are still extremely modest.
I have given the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Yardley, the text of a letter to me from a constituent whose child will be affected by this part of the Bill. I asked the mother concerned whether I could name her and her child, but she was reluctant to be named, and asked me to quote her letter anonymously. I shall therefore change the text slightly as I read, to take account of her wish to remain anonymous. However, I have given the Minister a copy of the letter, so she will be able to see exactly what my constituent wrote.
The letter, which was sent to me last week, says:
I am writing to you in desperation to ask for your help in preventing the Government from cancelling the existing Junior School assisted places. My child … won a full place to the … school.… last September.
Before the election the Labour party Education spokesman went on public record as saying that all existing Assisted places would be honoured. Now they appear to be breaking this promise.
We are distraught at the prospect of my child losing her education when the older Assisted places are being left in peace. I have no money to pay fees and I am desperate to do the best for my child.
Please advise me what to do, there must be many other parents in the constituency in a similar position … I enclose a letter I have sent to the Prime Minister".
The letter that my constituent wrote to the Prime Minister reads as follows:
I am writing to beg you to reconsider your policy on removing existing Assisted places from Junior School children. My child won a place to the … school … in September 1996 and we were impressed when your Education spokesman, before the election, promised that all existing Assisted places would be honoured.
That is the nub of the debate—that promise made in terms, both explicitly and implicitly, by the hon. Member for Walton. The message was clearly received loud and clear by my constituent, whose letter continues:
This now seems not to be the case and we are completely shattered that my child is to be punished for my child's wonderful achievement in gaining this place which was a passport to a better life.

I exist as a single parent on my small self-employed earnings and Family Credit, since my husband left. The stability and security of my child's promised education … meant everything to us.
My child is now distraught at the prospect of being torn away from a lovely school and friends, whilst the older Assisted Place children are left in peace, and I cannot justify it to my child.
I understand that there is a principle at stake here but I beg you as a parent of young children yourself, not to break a promise made to my child and to reconsider this policy and be magnanimous here.
That is the nub of the group of amendments. It is an appeal to the Government's generosity of spirit, an appeal to them to be magnanimous and live up to the trust that they said the electorate should repose in them—to govern for all the nation rather than respecting the tyranny of the majority.
I urge the Minister to reflect seriously on what my constituent says. I have no idea what the lady's political views are; I did not meet her on the doorstep during the election campaign, and she wrote to me only last week. She provides a powerful example of the kind of person who will be badly affected unless the Government accept the spirit of the amendments.
A range of solutions presents itself. The most obvious solution would be to accept the amendments—but the Government may be intent on rejecting them and the spirit that lies behind them. If so, I ask the Minister to give me a clear figure on the costs that would be involved in accepting them. If the sums are as small as I expect them to be—in a few years' time, they will be very small indeed—I can see no rationale for the Government digging in their toes and acting like a dog in the manger. There is no reason why they should resist such a straightforward case of humanitarian concern. The easiest course for the Government, therefore, would be to accept the amendments. Alternatively—a poor second best—the Government could state more clearly how generously they intend to use the discretion that the Bill will give them. I urge them to exercise that discretion wisely.
If nothing else, I urge the Minister to guarantee that the Prime Minister replies in person to my constituent, so that he is forced to give an account of why he believes the Government should break their pledge. If the Government accept the amendments, they will have a chance to prove that they do indeed put children before dogma.

Mr. Boswell: I welcome the chance to participate briefly in the debate, which I join only today—but already I have been appalled by what I have heard. I have been impressed by the force of the arguments deployed by my right hon. and hon. Friends and by the Liberal Democrat party. I need not detail the Committee by dilating on the general importance of Governments honouring their pledges unless and until there is a clear and specific reason for breaching them.
The principle in international law of pacta sunt servanda is that people who make undertakings should keep them. I find it disturbing that the Government, with the first education Bill of this Parliament—they have said that education is their priority—should slip up in this way.
I should like to reinforce the eloquent remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) about the human consequences of this measure. It is all very well saying that the numbers involved are small. There may be only 2,000 who fall into the category of the 13-year-old problem, although more


are included if we consider the primary and secondary sectors together. I thought that this House stood for the principle that one injustice to one person is an injustice too many. That is why I am troubled about the proposals.
I am, for instance, worried about the implications for parents, some of them single parents, and for children, many of whom entertained the reasonable and legitimate expectation of being able to stay at their current schools until such time as they would usually change schools. Now they find that that settled understanding is to be frustrated by an apparently capricious Act of Parliament.
As an only child, I attached great importance to the security of knowing where my schooling would continue at the next stage, if all went well. Family problems can exacerbate the insecurities. I well understand the technical issues described by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), because the same LEA, in my constituency and the adjoining one, administers a middle school system as well as the usual transfer at the age of 11. If a family with a child of 11 were breaking up, it would certainly benefit that child's education if he were allowed to stay on for another couple of years instead of being forced to move schools in the middle of the family breakdown. Unless there is good reason for doing so, it seems to me wrong to disturb the pattern of a child's education.
What could the reasons behind this proposed change be? Although I agreed with a great deal of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) said, I beg to differ with him over his interpretation of the amount that is supposed to be saved. On a rough calculation, I reckon that the 2,000 children associated with the 13-years-old problem might produce a saving equivalent to a couple of hours of primary school education throughout the country. That is so little as to be indistinguishable from background noise. Ministers cannot plausibly maintain that the Bill will transform the prospects of primary school children generally, so I cannot believe that a wish to save money was the real motivation behind the legislation.
A second, more likely, possibility was a concern to avoid artificial arrangements. When I was the Minister responsible for higher education, I discussed with officials the theoretical possibility in a fully integrated education system—perhaps within a single foundation—that a child entering primary school at the age of five might claim, on the basis that he was embarking on an integrated course of study leading in due course to the award of a first degree, that he was entitled to a mandatory award from the local education authority for the whole of that period. I suspect that the adept lawyers in the DFEE would have overturned that idea; but if the Government say that they want to implement an anti-avoidance measure, as the tax lawyers would call it, I can understand what they are about.
The Government may be worried about preparatory schools—I do not believe they are usually run in this spirit—so reordering their affairs to give certain children one or two more years of assisted places. If so, I have some sympathy for their point. If children usually leave a particular preparatory school at the age of 11, but that school then decides to keep them on for another couple of years in assisted places until the age of 13—after the decision to abolish the assisted places scheme—the Government would be on to a point. I do not, however, believe that such cases are typical at all.
We are talking about schools whose normal age of transfer is 13, even though that does not mirror the pattern of transfer in the maintained sector. The amendments try to reconcile the problem humanely.
Earlier, I invited my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham to agree with me, and I think he did, that, although the usual age of transfer is 11, in the state sector—12 in middle schools—in the private sector and in schools offering assisted places it is usually 13. That is not universal, but it is fairly common. There is a simple discrepancy; consequently, under the Bill a small but significant number of children—any number of children is significant—will be forced to move at 11 when they would usually expect to transfer at 13. That would be unfortunate. Perhaps 2,000 children, on the most restrictive calculations, have been expecting to make their transfers at that age.
I concede that, if the Government are seeking to avoid monkey business—people trying to distort or frustrate the intentions for which the Government have a mandate—they may need to deal with that in some way, but they should not stumble on consequences for a significant number of individuals that will force them to change schools before they would normally expect to do so. In other words, we need to reverse the burden of proof. If there is a normal pattern of transfer from an assisted places school to another or to the maintained sector, that should be honoured. That is consistent with the pledge given by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle).
I can see that there are difficulties in effecting that. Some of my hon. Friends have referred to the importance of having a flexible interpretation of the regulations, which we have not yet seen. I agree in principle, but I must warn the Committee that, although it is important that regulations be interpreted flexibly, they cannot simply have a coach and horses driven through them, to allow for every single situation.
5 pm
What worries me about the way in which the legislation is framed is that it would be difficult in law—I am no lawyer, but I have some experience in these matters—to provide for everything to be at the Secretary of State's discretion. That might appear to be a tidy way of dealing with everything, but I have a horrible feeling that it is not reliable for the families involved, because discretion cannot be unlimited, however good the draftsman.
There is a human problem for a small but significant number of pupils and their families. In my view, it is because of the dissonance between the normal age of transfer in the maintained sector and that in the private sector and assisted places. The legislation must be considered in terms of that specific problem.
It would be possible to come up with a solution, along the lines of amendment No. 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), that preserves people's normal expectation for transfer and, as a safeguard or fallback, prevents people from distorting or frustrating the Government's intentions. The Government should therefore either accept the amendments or undertake to cover the point in another way.

Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend makes a helpful analysis. I invite him to consider the important point that


in every case it is the parents who have decided that it is in the best interests of their child's education for it to continue until 13.

Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend is a lawyer, and I am not. I may have appeared to be arguing the legal side—that is important—but I must emphasise the importance of the human side as well. We simply cannot afford—however much we want to do for the maintained sector or for anyone else—to ride roughshod over a small number of individuals, in pursuit of a principle that is in itself questionable, and on the back of pledges that ought to be undertaken and maintained.

Mr. Hawkins: I want to reinforce some of the points made in powerful speeches by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) and my hon. Friends the Members for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison).
Many parents have contacted me about this matter. Last weekend, I was approached by a mother who said that she had grave reservations about the likely effect of the Bill on her daughter if the new Government do not accept the amendments. She said that the Prime Minister's "education, education, education" should be replaced by "broken promise, broken promise, broken promise". I hope that Labour Members will bear that in mind.
If the Government do not accept the amendments or a modified version of them, that will be a gross breach of trust. There can be no getting away from the unequivocal words of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) in a speech to the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools conference and his subsequent letters.
Ministers know that those words were unequivocal, and they cannot weasel out of them. If they do not accept the amendments, they will be guilty, within a few weeks of taking office, of breaking their first promise, on an issue that the Prime Minister has said is the most important to him as a parent and as a Prime Minister.
I have some experience of the preparatory school world. Some years ago, I taught in a preparatory school for a relatively short time. That school, let me tell the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), had children with special needs and made an excellent job of teaching them. I was fortunate enough to play a part in giving extra remedial teaching to some of those pupils. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support and his acceptance of the need to keep the promises made by Labour Front Benchers; he clearly has enormous personal experience of education.
My father was a university don at both the beginning and the end of his career, and my mother was a teacher at an independent girls' school—she was head of the mathematics department for many years and eventually became the headmistress—that also benefited from assisted places at the preparatory level and dealt with special needs children, so I know the importance of the matter to parents who are often on low incomes. If the

Labour party, with its huge majority, is not prepared to start keeping promises made to parents only a few weeks ago, it will stand condemned in the years ahead.
It is important to consider the detail of the amendments. None of my hon. Friends has yet spoken in detail about amendment No. 28, which emphasises the importance of
religious content … the curriculum provided … opportunities for sport … size of classes; and … single-sex provision".
Such factors explain why parents on low incomes often choose the special facilities that the independent sector at preparatory level can provide.
The Government are going back to the bad old ways of the 1960s and 1970s, when they were hellbent on destroying good direct-grant schools, such as the one that I attended having won a free place on the 11-plus. They are acting on the same old doctrinaire belief that if not all can have, none shall have. That old Labour ideology permeates the new Government's rejection of the amendments.
The matter is of enormous importance to the parents involved. I hope that the Government will reflect further. If they do not, I promise them that, over the next five years, in the eyes—and the words—of many parents, they will live to regret it.

Mrs. Theresa May: In the debate so far, my right hon. and hon. Friends have adopted a generous approach towards the Government, as did the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). I shall try to follow that example, because I hope that we all agree that the key issue is the children and families who will be affected if the amendments are not accepted. Parents accepted assisted places for their children in good faith, in the expectation that they would be permitted to carry on to the age of 13 and not have their education disrupted, as it will be if the Bill is not amended.
I echo the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), and urge the Government to listen carefully to the genuine concerns that have been expressed this afternoon. If they cannot accept the amendments, they should at least accept that they need to resolve the problem and table new amendments in another place.
Parents accepted places for their children in good faith because the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) promised that places would be honoured through to the age of 13. The promise was made on 1 April; I cannot imagine that he made it in the belief that there was no chance of his party forming a Government after the general election. Had he done so, one might question his bona fides and integrity in one sense, but we would have understood it more than we do in the circumstances that now apply. I think that he made the promise believing that his party would honour it in government and that people who acted on it could have faith in what the Government would do.
I ask the Government to consider seriously our concerns and to think more widely about how their approach to the Bill will set the tone of this Government. I think that this is the first legislation to go through this Parliament that will have an immediate impact on people. There is no doubt that if the Government do not accept our amendments, they will be guilty of a breach of trust. After all, during the general election campaign, the


Labour party claimed that it was fighting on the issue of trust. It said that it was the party that could be trusted and that it would honour its pledges and manifesto commitments. Both the Bill in general and the specific provisions about the continuation of education for 11-year-olds up to 13 show that Labour is breaking its promises to the electorate.
Labour's manifesto pledge was to abolish the assisted places scheme and to use the money to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds. The Bill abolishes the assisted places scheme but does nothing about the other side of the equation to ensure that class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds are reduced. I have already heard teachers in my constituency say that they know what will happen: the money will not appear; it will not be enough if it does appear; the chances of its coming are fairly slim; and that class sizes will not be reduced as a result of the Bill. Given that the Government are setting the tone for their whole period of office, I urge them to think carefully about the pledge that was given and to honour it.
I make no apologies to hon. Members who have heard me speak about the matter before, although I am sorry that it always seems to be the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), who is here when I raise the point, given that it concerns one of her ministerial colleagues. As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry said, the Bill's impact is most significant on families with 11 to 13-year-olds for whom the scheme is used because of social need. It is in such cases that the difficulties of adjusting when the child no longer has a place will be most significant, especially when the scheme has been used to provide boarding school education.
Charitable foundations contacted the hon. Member for Walton before the general election. He discussed the issue with them and gave them every expectation that even if the assisted places scheme was abolished, as Labour proposed, a way could be found to deal with children who required boarding school education because of social need, family background or other difficulties. Again, there was an expectation of Government action because of statements made—in good faith, I am sure—by the hon. Member for Walton. Charities and parents, in good faith, expected action.
I urge the Government to reconsider and to accept either our amendments or those proposed by others. They should ensure that the Bill does not go through with the breach of trust that exists as it stands, but accept that the hon. Member for Walton acted in good faith, and accept the genuine concerns expressed by Conservative and Liberal Members. The Government must accept that if they do not agree to the amendments, some children will be seriously affected. I urge them to find amendments that they can accept, so that the children involved can continue their education as they were promised.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Much has been said on the amendments, so I shall keep to a few brief remarks.
I should like to take the House back to the atmosphere that prevailed in March and April. Time after time, Conservative Members asked the Labour party, in the unlikely event, as we thought then, of it being elected, to give an expenditure pledge on this or that subject. It is therefore inconceivable that the hon. Member for

Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) would have given a pledge on 11 to 13-year-olds if it had not been cleared by the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). He must have had it cleared, and the money must have been allocated.
If my maths is correct and it is right that about 2,000 places are involved in extending the assisted places scheme from 11 to 13-year-olds, and we generously assume that the marginal difference between the cost of educating a pupil under the scheme and education in the state system is about £2,000—I think that it is only £1,000 at the most—I calculate the additional cost to be in the region of £4 million. Given that people have based their decisions on their children's educational future on the basis that they would continue to be educated in the private maintained sector until 13, that is not an unreasonable cost.

Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend's mathematics is excellent, but the difference between the cost of a secondary place on the assisted places scheme and a state school place is only about £700 or £800. The sum involved is therefore considerably less.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I said that £2,000 was generous and that I thought that it was probably £1,000 or less. She has probably given a more accurate estimate. I ask the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), as she has already been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), to give the Government's accurately calculated figure. That would be helpful.
I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). I tried to get her as my next-door neighbour, but it did not quite work out. She has made an excellent start in the House, and I hope that we will hear many more of her contributions, because her grasp of this subject is obviously great. She and my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) made some telling remarks about the human aspect of the matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry mentioned cases where parents divorce. I have never had to grapple with that subject, and I hope that I never will. However, from friends who have had to grapple with it, I know that it is traumatic for the children. I hope that, even if the hon. Member for Yardley cannot incorporate it into the Bill, she will use the discretion available to her under the various Education Acts sensitively, so that, even if we cannot get a blanket extension for children aged 11 to 13 to continue on the scheme, sensitive human cases will be sympathetically considered.
I can conceive of other difficult cases. As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry said, if a local education authority operates a middle school system for children to the age of 12 and the assisted places scheme stops at the age of 11, children will have to change to one school and then to another at 13. Changing school always sets back a child's academic education, as we all know from our own children. Again, I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to exercise her discretion in that circumstance.
A third category of human difficulty is that of a really bright child on the assisted places scheme who might get a scholarship to a privately maintained secondary school. He or she would have to leave the primary maintained


school to go to a secondary school before getting a scholarship to continue further in the private system. That would mean further disruption for a child who, under normal circumstances, would not have expected it.
Amendment No. 28 deals with the type of state schools that might be available. Many of the best state schools have a waiting list—that is certainly the case in my constituency. Often, it is not possible for a child to get into the preferred school. Again, it may be a case of a child leaving an assisted place at 11 to go to a state school that may not have been his or her first choice. Great difficulties could be involved. The child might have to travel further from home and might not be with his or her friends or with relations who had attended the school nearest the home. Those are all individual circumstances that need to be taken into account.
Amendment No. 28 incorporates a number of features that must be taken into consideration. For example, the state school available might not be suitable on religious grounds for a child coming out of the private system. What would happen if a child had attended a private school with assisted places money, but the religious ethos of the state school nearest to his or her home was different? A child might be particularly gifted in music or sport, but the local state school might not have those facilities.
I am keen to ensure that all state schools have a wide curriculum. That is why the previous Government, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) was involved, produced the White Paper "Sport: Raising the Game". I am keen for all our state schools to have good sports facilities.
Parental choice is what matters most in the extension of the assisted places scheme from the age of 11 to 13. After all, parents expected when they put their children into the private system with assisted places money that their child would stay there until the age of 13. If a parent has an expectation and the Government give a pledge—even when they are in opposition—under all the rules of basic justice, that pledge should be honoured. I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Front Bench to honour that pledge. A small amount of money is involved and the parents affected have a right to expect that it will be honoured.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: I will be brief, as others want to speak on this group of amendments.
I rise to support amendments Nos. 11, 3 and 28. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) made a number of telling points very eloquently. First, he referred to the human aspect of the Bill and how it will impact on children. It is important for us to recognise that we are talking about individual children within a peer group in a school who will be removed from that peer group as a consequence of this Bill. It is not simply a matter of those children transferring to another school inside the maintained sector, which may or may not be able to meet the child's needs as well as the school that he or she was attending. Clearly, in the parents' view, the school that the child was attending under the assisted places scheme offered them facilities and choice that were not available in the maintained sector.
There is a human aspect above and beyond that. Having made a choice on behalf of their children, parents had the reasonable expectation that their child would be able to proceed along that path. In addition, the children had become familiar with and very much a part of the school and its ethos. All of us with children know that, if they become attached to a school of any kind, leaving is a wrench and can have a deleterious impact on their education if they think that the way they are removed is unfair.
Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire referred to schools that appear to have a different character, but are in reality the same school, with a continuing ethos that runs from the primary to the secondary school. There is an example of just such in south Cambridgeshire. St. Faith's school enjoys the same charity number and the same Department for Education and Employment number as the Leys school. Parents of children attending St. Faith's have the expectation that their children will continue to the Leys when they are 13.
That brings me to the point of the amendment that deals with the impact on children who would normally be in a school until the age of 13 but who will be required, under the circumstances foreseen by the Government, to leave at 11. I shall not continue at length, as my hon. Friends have explained the case more eloquently than I could.
Parents clearly had reasonable expectations when they chose a school. Those expectations were reinforced as recently as April this year, when the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) said that, if children had commenced at a school, they would be able to continue until the age of 13. I fear that we may have discovered during this debate and from the Government's actions in moving the hon. Gentleman into the recesses of the Cabinet Office that, whereas we believed that there was a doctrine of collective responsibility on the part of the Government, there seems to be a doctrine of collective irresponsibility where pledges made in advance of the election are concerned.
In those circumstances, it was reasonable for parents to expect that their children would be able to proceed until the age of 13. For that reason, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) was right to draw our attention to the fact that the Government made a pledge and that it is one that should be honoured, not broken.
As I said on Second Reading and when speaking on an earlier amendment—I think that the Minister said this from a sedentary position earlier—the Government argue that, if children are required to leave schools that they attended under the assisted places scheme, it is acceptable for them to revert to the maintained sector—which indeed it may be for some, but it is important for the Government to recognise that parents have made their choices for diverse reasons.
St. Mary's in south Cambridgeshire, for example, is a single-sex school with a Roman Catholic orientation. That brings me back to amendment No. 28. It is incumbent on Ministers to answer this point. If there is no school of the character that I have described, it is not sufficient for them to say that children must revert to the maintained sector and that that is good enough and they are in exactly the same position as all other children. If no choice of school is available to parents, where do Ministers expect their


children to go? On what basis are Ministers removing that choice? I want the Minister to clarify the situation in her reply.
Representations made to me by schools in my constituency seem to show that they foresee a time when children over the age of 11—when they would normally transfer to the maintained sector—in schools that take pupils up to the age of 13 may continue for one or two academic years and then, aged 13, be asked to transfer to the maintained sector. That may not be convenient; it may be difficult for those children to transfer into a new peer group and a new class of pupils who have been at that school for a couple of years.
By contrast, children at a neighbouring school who may have taken up their assisted places at 11 could continue with them through to 18. According to the letter from the Department for Education and Employment, one child of 12 may be required to leave school and enter the maintained sector a year later and another child of 12 on an assisted place may be assured of that place through to the age of 18. I should be grateful if the Minister would reflect on that point and, if time allows, answer that matter, which has been raised with me in my constituency. I should be grateful if she would say how that problem can be resolved.
It is right for Conservative Members to press an amendment that seeks to remove a provision that would mean the Government reneging on the pledge that they made before the election to allow children to continue from their primary places up to the age of 13.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Estelle Morris): I am replying to a debate which has taken, I think, five days—we started in the early hours of Friday morning. The amendments deal with just one issue and I shall attempt to address the comments made. Although it has been a wide-ranging debate, the amendments are quite clear.
There have been a number of thoughtful and considered speeches. I am thinking particularly of the speeches of the hon. Members for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), to which I listened carefully. I apologise to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May): I realised some time after I sat down on Friday morning that I had not addressed her specific query, although I had intended to. I shall take the opportunity to do so now.
I share the hon. Lady's concern about children, of whatever background, whose education is made more difficult. I also share her concern about children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds, who have enough to contend with without having to cope with extra burdens. I have not yet received representations from the organisation to which she referred on Thursday evening, but when I receive its letters I shall reply to them.

Mrs. May: I should be happy to pass the correspondence to the Minister directly in order to speed up the process. I am grateful for her generous comments, and I look forward to her addressing the issue as sympathetically as she suggested she would.

Ms Morris: The letters, which I shall look at, are probably wending their way from the officials to my office.
The hon. Lady referred to the assisted places scheme. I see from the note given to me by my officials that boarding fees are expressly precluded from the assisted places scheme. In the cases to which I suspect the hon. Lady is referring, an assisted places day scheme has been supplemented by boarding fees from elsewhere.

Mrs. May: I am talking about those cases where the boarding fees are paid by charitable foundations and the assisted places scheme is used to top up the educational element of the package.

Ms Morris: I do not wish to sound too sympathetic, for fear that I may mislead the hon. Lady, but our pledge not to extend the assisted places scheme remains firm. Decisions about whether to fund boarding education are for the local authority—sometimes they are mandatory and sometimes discretionary. That is a more complicated issue than that considered by the legislation. I shall ensure that a full reply is given, as I am aware of the hon. Lady's great interest in the subject.
I confirm that, as a Government, we have made it clear that we do not wish to extend the assisted places scheme and that the commitments that we gave in our manifesto will be honoured. I shall remind the Committee of those commitments. First, children in a secondary school will be able to finish secondary school and, secondly, children in a primary school will be able to finish primary school. Opinions differ over the age at which primary school is deemed to finish—whether it is 11 or 13. For all the long debates that we have had, it is that point which the amendments address.
I should like to clarify something that I think the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire was saying. The law has never allowed someone who takes a place under the primary assisted places scheme to transfer it and continue to 18. Even under the legislation passed by the Conservative Government, a child could not win a primary place aged five, seven, eight or 10 and automatically transfer it and use it up to the age of 18. My understanding is that someone on a primary assisted place would have to reapply for more funding for another place at 11 and someone on an assisted place at a prep school—where pupils stay until they are 13—would have to apply for a further place on a competitive basis at the age of 13.

Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Lady is using a sympathetic tone, but her comments basically amount to, "No, no, no." Will she answer a specific question? Some children have been offered an assisted place at the age of 10, alongside others who have been offered places at the age of 11. It is my understanding that the director from the Department has visited the schools to say that those children cannot have their assisted places. Those pupils have already prepared themselves to spend the next seven or eight years in those schools.
The information that I have received show that those children number no more than 70 or 80. Will the Minister give me an answer now, at the Dispatch Box, on whether she will consider the cases and come to individual decisions using the discretionary powers granted to the Secretary of State in the Bill? Will she consider the cases, because they are causing a great deal of heartache and hardship to a small number of families?

Ms Morris: I have outlined the Government's thinking on the issue: the primary age should finish at 11 and the


secondary age at 18. I can confirm that the Bill contains a discretionary clause that the Secretary of State will use. I cannot give the hon. Lady her answer now, but, if she wishes, I shall reply later.
The Bill's principle is clear. We had to decide whether we deemed that the primary level finished at 11—

Mr. Boswell: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Morris: No, I must make some progress. I have been generous in giving way.
We had to decide whether the primary level finished at 11 or 13—that is the crux of the matter.
I shall give way now, but then I must make progress—this is likely to be the last time that I give way.

Mr. Boswell: I thank the hon. Lady, who has been most generous with her time.
I wonder whether, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), I can invite the Minister to try to give her response before the Bill is further considered in another place.

Ms Morris: I shall certainly consider that invitation and try to respond to it—if not this evening, then later.
The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) talked about the age of transfer—11 or 13. He mentioned the difficulty of pupils entering schools where friendship groups have already been made, the curriculum has already been set and children have already settled down socially and academically.
Those aspects governed our decision on the transfer of pupils at 11 or 13. Half a million children every year already change schools at the age of 11. It is, therefore, sensible to provide for pupils to move into the maintained sector at the same age as other 11-year-olds transfer from primary to secondary schooling. Our approach is fair and puts the interests of the child ahead of the interests of the school—a point which was adequately summed up by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire.
It is also fair—using the guidance mentioned by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire—that, if the age of transfer to secondary school in an area is other than 11, the Secretary of State should hold discretionary powers. That provision is contained in the Bill—it is one way in which the discretionary powers can be exercised.
I reiterate that the Secretary of State will have discretionary powers that he may exercise when he sees fit. The golden rule is to make sure that we do not expand the assisted places scheme. We must move as swiftly and as fairly as possible so that we may use the resources that are freed from the scheme to make sure that five, six and seven-year-olds will not be in classes of more than 30. That is dear to our hearts, and there is a genuine difference of opinion on the issue between the Government and the Opposition.
We believe that class size matters. We, too, want to give opportunities to children and we care about lost opportunities and broken dreams. We have made the

commitment that we shall do all in our power to make sure that the education system delivers the best to the many and not the few. I shall use that phrase again.
It is wholly appropriate that public funding which, in the past, has been used to give opportunities to the few and deny them to the many, should more properly be used to ensure adequate class sizes. We have been generous and fair and have tried to ensure that no child's education is broken or damaged. We differ from the Opposition in that we think that to transfer 11-year-olds to the maintained sector is not dreadful. They will be transferred to good-quality schools where they will have opportunities and will succeed. Their education will not be damaged. We have more faith in the maintained system than Conservative Members who ran it for the past 18 years seem to have. That is why I invite the House to reject the amendments.

Mrs. Gillan: We intend to press the amendments to a vote, and I understand that Liberal Democrat Members will press for a vote on amendment No. 3.
This part of the Bill will go down as the broken pledge clause because the Walton pledge was broken by the Government within a few minutes of their coming to power. The amendments relate particularly to children of about 11, but the Minister does not fully appreciate that for many children that is a vulnerable age. There is no doubt that such children will be badly affected by the Bill.
The Minister repeated the saying, "We are for the many, not the few." Therefore, the voice of protest and the voices of the parents of those children is obviously too small to be heard by the Government, although they are the few and not the many. If they were a mob, they would be listened to by the Government, but, because they are small in number and the children are from low-income families, the Government ride roughshod over them.
I do not want to add much to the excellent speeches by my hon. Friends. If the Minister is so firmly committed to abolishing assisted places, why did the Secretary of State agree to allow me when I was the Minister responsible for this area to expand the primary school places for at least a year? Was it not the most callous act to allow the scheme to expand for just 12 months? The Secretary of State was keen to get more money so that he could try to keep a pledge which he knows it will be impossible to fulfil.
The reason for the Bill is to produce extra money to enable the Government to try to reduce class sizes, but the money that will be gleaned will be nowhere near enough to do that. When he appeared with me on a television programme earlier today the Minister of State gave the impression that he was scrabbling around for money to fulfil his pledge on class sizes. In answer to a question about funding for primary schools he said:
What we are doing is. we are releasing money from the nursery voucher scheme and the phasing out of the assisted places scheme. In the short term, that will bring in more resources.
He has not said how much will be released by the abolition of the nursery voucher scheme, but it is beginning to dawn on the Government that even the abolition of the assisted places scheme will not give them enough to fulfil their pledge. The first broken promise is the Walton pledge, and the next is the pledge on class sizes.
The Minister would not give me an answer about 10-year-olds. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) yesterday received a fax from a parent who is extremely concerned about this issue. I hope that the Minister will be decent enough to write to me on the matter because the author of the fax is the constituent of a Labour Member who, I understand, will take the matter up with the Department. The constituent writes:
The assisted places scheme is affecting children who have been offered a place for 10-plus entry to secondary school this September. Very few schools in the assisted places scheme offer a 10-plus entry and so this ruling only affects a small number of children. But these few seem to me to be being overlooked and unfairly treated.
5.45 pm
The Minister is not paying attention. Those children are certainly being overlooked. The fax continues:
For these children starting their secondary education at 10 they are to all intents and purposes in exactly the same position as those children who will be starting their secondary education at 11 this September. Both groups were notified of their assisted places at the same time, both will by now have begun to make the necessary arrangements for changing schools. Some will even have bought uniforms and both will be looking forward to spending the next seven or eight years at their chosen schools. Yet the dividing line has been drawn between them, and for this small group of 10-plus, maybe as few as 70, their future has been made worryingly uncertain. They achieved an assisted place and now, even before they have started the school, they have been told it will be taken away from them. It will only run for one year.
By not considering those children, how much would the Minister save? How much would it cost her to honour those places and not destroy the lives of some 70 children? It is obvious that the Government are interested only in the many and not the few. I am not hopeful of any understanding from them.
Amendment No. 28 was spoken to by some of my hon. Friends. I challenge the Minister's statement that there is only one point in the amendments. Has she read them or did she just read the notes that were provided by her officials? The amendments certainly contain another point, and it is a key one because it deals with the provision of comparable education for children who are going on to secondary schools. Amendment No. 28 shows that the areas that we picked out were religious content, curriculum provided, opportunities for sport, class sizes, which are so dear to the Minister's heart, and, of course, single-sex provision.

Ms Estelle Morris: I read the amendment, but it seemed so out of tune with the hon. Lady's acts when she was in government that I thought it could not possibly be serious. Does comparability of class size mean that the hon. Lady and her party have changed their minds? Do they now believe that class size matters, and does the hon. Lady think that going from a class of 15 to a class of 35 would cause problems?

Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Lady seems to forget that I do not have to answer the questions now. [Interruption.] She has to answer them, but she was in opposition for a long time and a leopard cannot change its spots. She has to answer the questions and her response to these amendments has made it obvious that she is incapable of doing that.
As to religious content, will the Minister assure me that these children will have a Catholic school available to them, or perhaps a school that has worship every day or mass? Will the school deal with moral education in the same way as the school that the child has come from? She obviously does not care.
On the curriculum, these children sometimes study Latin, Greek and the classics. Will the Minister ensure that children will have the choice and the chance in the state sector to study those subjects? Will they be able to study politics and economics at A-level? State schools should offer at least the spread of subjects that is often offered by schools that these children would have expected to go to.
On sport at school, will those children be able to play lacrosse, hockey, cricket, rugby fives, real tennis, golf or rowing? Has the Minister any idea of the range of sports? Before she laughs, I have been told that Mike Atherton, who has just captained the England side to a brilliant success, which, I assure hon. Members, had nothing to do with a Labour Government—the side trained under a Tory Government—held an assisted place. Will the children be taught in the same size of class and will there be single-sex provision? The differences are obvious.
I have no hope that the Government will listen to anything that Conservative Members say. When I was a Minister and we considered legislation in Committee, we did listen and make adjustments. This Government have shown that they are not going to make adjustments or to listen. This group of amendments will be remembered as the broken Walton pledge amendments.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 147, Noes 400.

Division No. 23]
[5.51 pm


AYES


Amess, David
(Grantham & Stamford)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Day, Stephen


Arbuthnot, James
Duncan, Alan


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Duncan Smith, Iain


Baldly, Tony
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)
Evans, Nigel


Bercow, John
Faber, David


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fabricant, Michael


Blunt, Crispin
Fallon, Michael


Body, Sir Richard
Flight, Howard


Boswell, Tim
Forsythe, Clifford


Brady, Graham
Forth, Eric


Brazier, Julian
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fox, Dr Liam


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fraser, Christopher


Burns, Simon
Gale, Roger


Butterfill, John
Garnier, Edward


Cash, William
Gibb, Nick


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Gill, Christopher



Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Chope, Christopher
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Clappison, James
Gray, James


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Green, Damian


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Greenway, John



Grieve, Dominic


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Collins, Tim
Hague, Rt Hon William


Colvin, Michael
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hammond, Philip


Cran, James
Hawkins, Nick


Curry, Rt Hon David
Hayes, John


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Heald, Oliver


Davies, Quentin
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward






(Old Bexley & Sidcup)
Robathan, Andrew


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Horam, John
Ruffley, David


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
St Aubyn, Nick


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hunter, Andrew
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey 
Soames, Nicholas


 
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Key, Robert
Spicer, Sir Michael


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Spring, Richard


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Steen, Anthony


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Streeter, Gary


Lansley, Andrew
Swayne, Desmond


Letwin, Oliver
Syms, Robert


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lidington, David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Loughton, Tim
Temple-Morris, Peter


Luff, Peter
Thompson, William


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Townend, John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tredinnick, David


Mclntosh, Miss Anne
Trend, Michael


MacKay, Andrew
Tyrie, Andrew


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Viggers, Peter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Walter, Robert


Madel, Sir David
Wardle, Charles


Malins, Humfrey
Waterson, Nigel


Maples, John
Wells, Bowen


Mates, Michael
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Whittingdale, John


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


May, Mrs Theresa
Willetts, David


Merchant, Piers
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Moss, Malcolm
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Nicholls, Patrick
Woodward, Shaun


Norman, Archie
Yeo, Tim


Page, Richard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Paice, James



Paterson, Owen
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pickles, Eric
Mr. Richard Ottaway and


Prior, David
Mr. Peter Ainsworth.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Betts, Clive


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Blackman, Mrs Liz


Ainger, Nick
Blears, Ms Hazel


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Blizzard, Robert


Allan, Richard (Shef'd Hallam)
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)
Boateng, Paul


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Borrow, David


Anderson, Janet (Ros'ale)
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Bradshaw, Ben


Ashton, Joe
Brake, Thomas


Atherton, Ms Candy
Brand, Dr Peter


Atkins, Ms Charlotte
Breed, Colin


Baker, Norman
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E & Wallsend)


Barnes, Harry



Barron, Kevin
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Battle, John
Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)


Bayley, Hugh
Burden, Richard


Beard, Nigel
Burgon, Colin


Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)
Burstow, Paul


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Butler, Christine


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Byers, Stephen


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cable, Dr Vincent


Bennett, Andrew F
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Benton, Joe
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bermingham, Gerald
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Berry, Roger
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Best, Harold
Canavan, Dennis





Cann, Jamie
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Caplin, Ivor
Foster, Don (Bath)


Casale, Roger
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Caton, Martin
Foster, Michael John (Worcester)


Cawsey, Ian
Foulkes, George


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Fyfe, Maria


Chaytor, David
Galbraith, Sam


Chidgey, David
Galloway, George


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gapes, Mike


Clapham, Michael
Gardiner, Barry


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)



Gerrard, Neil


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Godsiff, Roger


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clelland, David
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Graham, Thomas


Coaker, Vernon
Grant, Bernie


Coffey, Ms Ann
Griffiths, Ms Jane (Reading E)


Cohen, Harry
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Connarty, Michael
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Grocott, Bruce


Cooper, Ms Yvette
Grogan, John


Corbett, Robin
Gunnell, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hain, Peter


Corston, Ms Jean
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Cotter, Brian
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Cousins, Jim
Hancock, Mike


Cox, Tom
Hanson, David


Cranston, Ross
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Crausby, David
Harvey, Nick


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Heath, David (Somerton)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)
Hepburn, Stephen



Heppell, John


Curtis-Thomas, Ms Clare
Hesford, Stephen


Dafis, Cynog
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Dalyell, Tam
Hill, Keith


Darvill, Keith
Hinchliffe, David


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Home Robertson, John


Davidson, Ian
Hood, Jimmy


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Hope, Philip


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Dawson, Hilton
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Dean, Ms Janet
Howells, Dr Kim


Denham, John
Hoyle, Lindsay


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)


Dismore, Andrew



Dobbin, Jim
Humble, Mrs Joan


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Hurst, Alan


Donohoe, Brian H
Hutton, John


Doran, Frank
Iddon, Brian


Dowd, Jim
Illsley, Eric


Drew, David
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst')


Drown, Ms Julia
Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jamieson, David


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)


Edwards, Huw
Johnson, Alan (Hull W)


Ellman, Ms Louise
Johnson, Ms Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Ennis, Jeff



Etherington, Bill
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Fearn, Ronnie
Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Fisher, Mark
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Flint, Ms Caroline



Flynn, Paul
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Follett, Ms Barbara
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)






Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Oaten, Mark


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Keeble, Ms Sally
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Keen, Alan (Feltham)
O'Hara, Edward


Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)
Olner, Bill


Kemp, Fraser
Opik, Lembit


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Organ, Mrs Diana



Osborne, Mrs Sandra


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Khabra, Piara S
Pearson, Ian


Kidney, David
Pendry, Tom


King, Andy (Rugby)
Perham, Ms Linda


King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green)
Pickthall, Colin


Kingham, Tessa
Pike, Peter L


Kirkwood, Archy
Plaskitt, James


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Pollard, Kerry


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Pond, Chris


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Pope, Greg


Laxton, Bob
Pound, Stephen


Lepper, David
Powell, Sir Raymond


Leslie, Christopher
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Levitt, Tom
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Primarolo, Dawn


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Prosser, Gwyn


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Purchase, Ken


Linton, Martin
Quinn, Lawrie


Livingstone, Ken
Radice, Giles


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rammell, Bill


Llwyd, Elfyn
Rapson, Syd


Love, Andy
Raynsford, Nick


McAllion, John
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


McAvoy, Thomas
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


McCabe, Stephen
Rendel, David


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)



McDonagh, Ms Siobhain
Robinson, Geoffrey (Ccv'try NW)


Macdonald, Calum
Rogers, Allan


McDonnell, John
Rooker, Jeff


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McIsaac, Ms Shona
Rowlands, Ted


McMaster, Gordon
Roy, Frank


McNulty, Tony
Ruane, Chris


MacShane, Denis
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Mactaggart, Fiona
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McWalter, Tony
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McWilliam, John
Ryan, Ms Joan


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Salter, Martin


Mallaber, Ms Judy
Savidge, Malcolm


Marek, Dr John
Sawford, Phil


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Sedgemore, Brian


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Shaw, Jonathan


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Sheerman, Barry


Martlew, Eric
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Maxton, John
Shipley, Ms Debra


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Meale, Alan
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Michael, Alun
Singh, Marsha


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Skinner, Dennis


Milburn, Alan
Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S,


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Moonie, Dr Lewis



Moore, Michael
Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Smith, Liew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Soley, Clive


Morley, Elliot
Southworth, Ms Helen


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Spellar, John


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mountford, Ms Kali
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mudie, George
Stevenson, George


Mullin, Chris
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Murphy, Dennis (Wansbeck)
Stewart, Ian (Ecdes)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stinchcombe, Paul





Stoate, Dr Howard
Tyler, Paul


Stott, Roger
Vaz, Keith


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wallace, James


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Walley, Ms Joan


Stringer, Graham
Ward, Ms Claire


Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)
Wareing, Robert N


Stunell, Andrew
Watts, David


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Webb, Steven



White, Brian


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Whitehead, Alan


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wigley, Dafydd


Taylor, Matthew (Truro & St Austell)
Williams, Dr Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Wlliams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Willis, Phil


Timms, Stephen
Winnick, David


Tipping, Paddy
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Todd, Mark
Wise, Audrey


Tonge, Dr Jenny
Wood, Mike


Touhig, Don
Woolas, Phil


Trickett, Jon
Worthington, Tony


Truswell, Paul
Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Wyatt, Derek


Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)



Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Tellers for the Noes:


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Mr. John McFall and


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Ms Bridget Prentice.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 3, in page 2, line 5, after `or,' insert—
`(b) in the case of a pupil with an assisted place at a school providing education for children up to the age of 13 but not beyond, at the end of the school year in which he attains the age of 13, or ` —[Mr. Don Foster.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided. Ayes 181, Noes 354.

Division No. 24]
[6.8 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)


Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth(Rushcliffe)


Amess, David



Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Arbuthnot, James
Collins, Tim


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Colvin, Michael


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Baker, Norman
Cotter, Brian


Baldry, Tony
Cran, James


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Curry, Rt Hon David


Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Berth, Rt Hon A J
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Bercow, John
Day, Stephen


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Blunt, Crispin
Duncan, Alan


Boswell, Tim
Duncan Smith, Iain


Brady, Graham
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brake, Thomas
Evans, Nigel


Brand, Dr Peter
Faber, David


Breed, Colin
Fabricant, Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fallon, Michael


Browning, Mrs Angela
Feam, Ronnie


Burnett, John
Flight, Howard


Burns, Simon
Forsythe, Clifford


Burstow, Paul
Forth, Eric


Butterfill, John
Foster, Don (Bath)


Cash, William
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Fox, Dr Liam



Fraser, Christopher


Chidgey, David
Gale, Roger


Chope, Christopher
Gamier, Edward


Clappison, James
George, Andrew (St Ives)






Gibb, Nick
Norman, Archie


Gill, Christopher
Oaten, Mark


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Opik, Lembit


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Ottaway, Richard


Gray, James
Page, Richard


Green, Damian
Paice, James


Greenway, John
Paterson, Owen


Grieve, Dominic
Pickles, Eric


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Prior, David


Hague, Rt Hon William
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Rendel, David


Hammond, Philip
Robathan, Andrew


Hancock, Mike
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Harris, Dr Evan
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Harvey, Nick
Ruffley, David


Hawkins, Nick
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Hayes, John
St Aubyn, Nick


Heald, Oliver
Sanders, Adrian


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward(Old Bexley & Sidcup)
Sayeed, Jonathan



Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Horam, John
Soames, Nicholas


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Spicer, Sir Michael


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Spring, Richard


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Steen, Anthony


Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)
Streeter, Gary


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Swayne, Desmond



Syms, Robert


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Keetch, Paul
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)



Taylor, Matthew (Truro & St Austell)


Key, Robert



Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Kirkwood, Archy
Thompson, William


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Tonge, Dr Jenny



Tredinnick, David


Lansley, Andrew
Trend, Michael


Letwin, Oliver
Tyler, Paul


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Tyrie, Andrew


Lidington, David
Viggers, Peter


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Wallace, James


Uoyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Walter, Robert


Luff, Peter
Wardle, Charles


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Waterson, Nigel


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Webb, Steven


Mcintosh, Miss Anne
Wells, Bowen


MacKay, Andrew
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Whittingdale, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Madel, Sir David
Willetts, David


Malins, Humfrey
Willis, Phil


Maples, John
Wilshire, David


Mates, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Woodward, Shaun


May, Mrs Theresa
Yeo, Tim


Merchant, Piers



Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Moore, Michael
Mr. Andrew Stunell and


Moss, Malcolm
Mr. David Heath.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Atkins, Ms Charlotte


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Barnes, Harry


Ainger, Nick
Barron, Kevin


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Battle, John


Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)
Bayley, Hugh


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Beard, Nigel


Anderson, Janet (Ros'dale)
Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Ashton, Joe
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Atherton, Ms Candy
Bennett, Andrew F





Benton, Joe
Dismore, Andrew


Bermingham, Gerald
Dobbin, Jim


Berry, Roger
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Best, Harold
Donohoe, Brian H


Betts, Clive
Doran, Frank


Blackman, Mrs Liz
Dowd, Jim


Blears, Ms Hazel
Drew, David


Blizzard, Robert
Drown, Ms Julia


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Boateng, Paul
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Borrow, David
Edwards, Huw


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Ellman, Ms Louise


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Ennis, Jeff


Bradshaw, Ben
Etherington, Bill


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Brown, Rt Hon Nick(Newcastle E & Wallsend)
Fisher, Mark



Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Flint, Ms Caroline


Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)
Flynn, Paul


Burden, Richard
Follett, Ms Barbara


Burgon, Colin
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Butler, Christine
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Byers, Stephen
Foster, Michael John (Worcester)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Galbraith, Sam


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Galloway, George


Canavan, Dennis
Gapes, Mike


Cann, Jamie
Gardiner, Barry


Caplin, Ivor
Gerrard, Neil


Casale, Roger
Gibson, Dr Ian


Caton, Martin
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Cawsey, Ian
Godman, Dr Norman A


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Godsiff, Roger


Chaytor, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clapham, Michael
Graham, Thomas


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Grant, Bernie


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Griffiths, Ms Jane (Reading E)



Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Grocott, Bruce


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Grogan, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hain, Peter


Clelland, David
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Coaker, Vernon
Hanson, David


Coffey, Ms Ann
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Cohen, Harry
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Connarty, Michael
Healey, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Cooper, Ms Yvette
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Corbett, Robin
Hepburn, Stephen


Corbyn, Jeremy
Heppell, John


Corston, Ms Jean
Hesford, Stephen


Cousins, Jim
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cox, Tom
Hill, Keith


Cranston, Ross
Hinchliffe, David


Crausby, David
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Home Robertson, John


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hood, Jimmy


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hope, Philip


Curtis-Thomas, Ms Clare
Hopkins, Kelvin


Dalyell, Tam
Howells, Dr Kim


Darvill, Keith
Hoyle, Lindsay


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (StretfordA Urmston)


Davidson, Ian



Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Hurst, Alan


Dawson, Hilton
Hutton, John


Dean, Ms Janet
Iddon, Brian


Denham, John
Illsley, Eric


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampsf'd)






Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Jamieson, David
Mountford, Ms Kali


Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)
Mudie, George


Johnson, Alan (Hull W)
Murphy, Dennis (Wansbeck)


Johnson, Ms Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)



Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
O'Hara, Edward



Olner, Bill


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Osborne, Mrs Sandra


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Pearson, Ian


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pendry, Tom


Keeble, Ms Sally
Perham, Ms Linda


Keen, Alan (Feltham)
Pickthall, Colin


Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)
Pike, Peter L


Kemp, Fraser
Plaskitt, James


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pollard, Kerry


Khabra, Piara S
Pond, Chris


Kidney, David
Pope, Greg


King, Andy (Rugby)
Pound, Stephen


King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Kingham, Tessa
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Presoott, Rt Hon John


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Primarolo, Dawn


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Prosser, Gwyn


Laxton, Bob
Purchase, Ken


Lepper, David
Quinn, Lawrie


Leslie, Christopher
Radice, Giles


Levitt, Tom
Rammell, Bill


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rapson, Syd


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Raynsford, Nick


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Linton, Martin
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Livingstone, Ken
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)



Love, Andy
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


McAllion, John
Rogers, Allan


McAvoy, Thomas
Rooker, Jeff


McCabe, Stephen
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Rowlands, Ted


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Roy, Frank


McDonagh, Ms Siobhain
Ruane, Chris


Macdonald, Calum
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McDonnell, John
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Salter, Martin


McIsaac, Ms Shona
Savidge, Malcolm


McMaster, Gordon
Sawford, Phil


McNulty, Tony
Sedgemore, Brian


Mactaggart, Fiona
Shaw, Jonathan


McWalter, Tony
Sheerman, Barry


McWilliam, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Shipley, Ms Debra


Mallaber, Ms Judy
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Mandelson, Peter
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Marek, Dr John
Singh, Marsha


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Maxton, John



Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)


Meale, Alan
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Michael, Alun
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Milburn, Alan
Soley, Clive


Miller, Andrew
Southworth, Ms Helen


Moffatt, Laura
Spellar, John


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Squire, Ms Rachel


Moran, Ms Margaret
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stevenson, George


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Morley, Elliot
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardiey)
Stinchcombe, Paul





Stoate, Dr Howard
Vaz, Keith


Stott, Roger
Walley, Ms Joan


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Ward, Ms Claire


Stringer, Graham
Wareing, Robert N


Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)
Watts, David


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)`
White, Brian



Whitehead, Alan


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Williams, Dr Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Taylor, David (NW Leics)



Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Winnick, David



Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Timms, Stephen
Wise, Audrey


Tipping, Paddy
Wood, Mike


Todd, Mark
Woolas, Phil


Touhig, Don
Worthington, Tony


Trickett, Jon
Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)


Truswell, Paul
Wyatt, Derek


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)



Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)
Tellers for the Noes:


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Mr. John McFall and


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Ms Bridget Prentice.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

REGULATIONS FOR PURPOSES OF TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr. David Lidington: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 3, line 2, leave out from `to' to 'fees' in line 3 and insert
`direct a school to refrain from making or postpone or reduce an increase in'.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 12, page 3, line 10, leave out paragraph (d).
No. 13, page 3, line 44, leave out 'two years' and insert 'one year'.
No. 14, page 3, line 46, leave out 'two years' and insert `one year'.
No. 26, in clause 5, clause 5, page 5, line 35. leave out paragraph (a).

Mr. Lidington: Amendment No. 35 would replace the power provided under clause 3 for the Secretary of State to determine the maximum fee level that schools may charge assisted places pupils with a power for him to direct schools to
refrain from making the increase or … postpone or restrict the amount of the increase".
As the Minister will be aware, the words in my amendment have been taken from the Education (Assisted Places) Regulations 1995. I should like to probe the reasons why the Government have decided to provide a new power for Ministers to intervene in setting maximum fee levels, rather than relying on the regulations' sufficient safeguards against abuse of the system.
I can understand why any Government would like to establish measures to deal with abuse, and I appreciate that there are fears that perhaps one school in 1,000 might attempt to exploit the assisted places scheme or the Bill's transitional arrangements by imposing extortionate fees that are designed to milk the taxpayer rather than to


provide a decent education for assisted places pupil. The need for safeguards against such abuse or fraud has been demonstrated, but the 1995 regulations already provide substantial safeguards.
Parents must apply to schools for a fee remission and supply schools with detailed information about their circumstances. The regulations give the Secretary of State power to direct that, in specific cases, parents shall not be entitled to a fee remission if he is satisfied that the parents have knowingly or recklessly furnished information for determining remission or have supplied false information.
Under the regulations, in such circumstances the Secretary of State must give parents the right to make representations before finalisation of any decision to block a fees remission. Nowhere in the Bill is a similar right to make representations offered to schools before the Secretary of State may intervene to exercise the power provided by the Bill to set a maximum fee level. I hope that the Minister will flesh out the Government's thinking on such matters.
The 1995 regulations allow the Secretary of State to specify the manner and form in which parents should make applications and declare their actual or expected income. Moreover, the Secretary of State may specify the nature of any documentary material that parties must produce in support of their case. Under section 21 of the regulations, a school is not permitted to increase fees for any pupil in the assisted places scheme without one month's written notice to the Secretary of State. The same section gives the Secretary of State powers to block or postpone such a fee increase or to restrict its amount.
Those powers seem to be sufficient to guard against any suspected abuse of the system. I therefore question why the Government believe that it is necessary to introduce a new power for the Secretary of State to go beyond blocking a fee increase which a school proposes for its reasons and to intervene in setting a maximum fee level. I do not want the House to give Ministers more powers than are absolutely necessary to intervene in the affairs of independent institutions.
I hope that the Minister will be able to offer the reassurance that I seek. If not, I hope that he will suggest ways in which the Government might attempt to amend clause 3 or clarify the matter in the regulations.

Mr. James Paice: I will address my remarks to amendment No. 12, which refers to the provision that allows the Secretary of State to discharge his obligations through the payment of a lump sum.
The purpose of the amendment is to obtain from the Government an assurance that the provision is not designed to short-change the schools that will receive such payments. Clearly, schools expect to receive their payments over time and in stages. I am somewhat puzzled that the Treasury has allowed the Government to suggest payment of a lump sum which gives no cash flow advantage. I am concerned that the lump sum may have been proposed because the Government want substantially to reduce the money that would otherwise have been paid through the staged process. The amendment's purpose is to obtain an assurance from the Government that they will not offer a substantially lesser sum than would have been paid through the staged process.
6.30 pm
We know that the ultimate purpose of the Bill is to reduce class sizes, and that the Government want to realise the money to achieve that. My hon. Friends have spoken about our belief that the figures do not add up. They do not add up to an even greater extent when one takes into account the proposition that the Government can discharge their obligation through the payment of a lump sum.
Clearly, schools will need to know the proper costs of the abolition of the assisted places programme. They will need to look at the numbers and the opportunity that they will have to fill the vacated places from other sources. They also need to take into account the costs of restructuring, possible staff redundancies, physical alterations to buildings and all the other costs that will come from the abolition of the scheme.
I hope, therefore, that the Committee will understand the Opposition's concerns. The schools' needs do not seem to fit with the proposal that the Secretary of State should be able to discharge his obligation through the payment of a lump sum. I ask the Minister to give a categorical assurance that the obligations to the schools that will be hard hit by the abolition of the assisted places scheme will be met properly. I also ask for an assurance that the Minister's desire to discharge those obligations through a lump sum does not and will not involve any lesser payment than would have been made through the staged process.

Mr. Byers: I begin by addressing the issues raised by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), which he raised in a most appropriate and reasonable manner. I understand his concerns. It is not the Government's intention through the Bill in any way adversely to affect the independent schools that take part in the assisted places scheme at the moment by introducing the possibility of a lump sum arrangement.
I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we want to proceed on the basis of an agreement with the individual school when considering the introduction of a lump sum payment. We do not wish to impose such a proposal on an individual school, but we believe that there may be circumstances when it is in the interests of both the taxpayer and the individual school to introduce a lump sum payment.
For example, as the scheme is being wound down, the numbers attending a particular school may be reduced to such a level that the administrative costs for an individual school may outweigh the benefits of the income that it receives from the Government. In those circumstances, it may be in the interests of both the taxpayer and the individual school to seek a lump sum payment.
I give the shadow Minister an assurance that it is not the Government's intention to impose such a solution on an individual school. We would wish to proceed on the basis of an agreement. Only when such an understanding was arrived at would we want to use the lump sum payment provisions.
On amendment No. 35, I can genuinely understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). We do not want to introduce a new system that fundamentally alters the present arrangements. Our difficulty is that, as a result of


provisions elsewhere in the Bill, the participation arrangements and the participation contracts which would cover the issues dealt with by the hon. Gentleman will no longer be with us. As the participation agreements are no longer there, we have to find a new procedure to deal with the issues that would normally have been covered by such agreements.
The provisions merely reflect the arrangements that operated under the previous Government. We do not wish to change in any dramatic way the provisions that apply under existing regulations. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, the existing provisions, specifically section 480(1)(b) of the Education Act 1996, give a degree of flexibility to the arrangements. We wish to see that flexibility in the Bill.
Flexibility is necessary. It was interesting that, in moving amendment No. 35, the hon. Gentleman specifically addressed the need for provisions to deal with fees escalating. In some cases, fees in the independent sector go down, so we need flexibility in the funding arrangements to reflect changes that may take place. The provisions in clause 3 continue the existing arrangements and give the flexibility to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It is not the Government's intention to intervene directly in these matters as long as we can secure value for taxpayers' money. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees on the necessity of achieving that.
The hon. Gentleman raised an important point about representations being made. We have sympathy with that approach and we do not want to disturb the existing arrangements whereby representations can be made in the way that the hon. Gentleman outlined. I hope that I have been able to assure Conservative Members about our intentions in clause 3, and I hope that they will reconsider the necessity of pressing the amendment.

Mr. Lidington: I am grateful to the Minister for his response, which was not only courteous and informative, but dealt helpfully with my concerns. In view of his assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 25, at end insert—
'(g) require local education authorities to provide information to the Secretary of State about the financial and other effects of the abolition of the assisted places scheme.'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in clause 3, page 3, line 42, leave out 'or (b)' and insert `(b) or (g)'.
No. 4, page 3, line 46, at end insert—
'(7) Before making regulations under this Section, the Secretary of State shall, in respect of any area in which there is a former participating school, consult the local education authority for that area concerning the availability of alternative school places in that area and the cost that will fall to the local education authority of providing such places.'.
New clause 1—Annual report to Parliament—
'.-Within one year of this Act coming into force, and annually thereafter for a period of no less than seven years, the Secretary of State shall make a report to Parliament on the effect of the abolition of the assisted places schemes.'.

Mr. Foster: The amendments would mean that local education authorities would be required to provide

reports to the Secretary of State on the effects of the abolition of the assisted places scheme, including the financial implications. They would also require the Secretary of State to make an annual report to Parliament during the seven years of the phasing out of the assisted places scheme in order to detail the impact of the Bill.
The whole Committee will agree that since the new Government came to power, they have introduced a large number of proposals. Indeed, in doing so, they have left a number of people fairly breathless and somewhat uncertain about whether some of the proposals are likely to deliver the goods.
Indeed, on several occasions, the House and the British people have been asked to take a rather large number of issues on trust. Yesterday, for example, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was debating with our European partners his proposals for resolving the significant unemployment problems throughout Europe. He announced various proposals that a number of people, including the Irish Foreign Minister, subsequently described as rather thin.
Today, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced her proposals to require primary schools to introduce one hour of literacy teaching every day. Again, much has had to be taken on trust. As the Under-Secretary of State knows, the national curriculum is massively overloaded, and it will be difficult to put that proposal into practice.
Many of us are concerned that unless the Government get the whole package right, they may not be able to deliver some of their worthwhile proposals. The same applies to the Bill. The Government are introducing legislation to abolish the assisted places scheme, through which they intend to save money in order to reduce class sizes for primary school children aged five, six and seven.
As I have said on previous occasions, the Liberal Democrats entirely support the proposed abolition of the assisted places scheme. We also support the proposal to reduce class sizes. Indeed, we urge the Government to go further and reduce class sizes not just for five, six and seven-year-olds, but for all primary school children, as we believe that class sizes are crucial. However, as has been pointed out several times during the debate, many people have grave reservations as to whether the savings from the abolition of the assisted places scheme will be sufficient to deliver the Government's promise.
On Thursday, the Minister for School Standards said:
We believe that we are moving in a way that will deliver on a clear pledge that we made to the British people during the general election."— [Official Report, 5 June 1997; Vol.295, c. 592.]
Clearly, the Minister is anxious to keep that pledge and we fully understand that. However, the big question is whether the money that will be released from the assisted places scheme will enable the Government to deliver on it.
In previous speeches, I have referred to the uncertainty of the Under-Secretary of State for Wales and the considerable doubt expressed by the Institute of Public Finance. I have also referred to the figures that were produced on this very issue by the previous Administration in answer to parliamentary questions. Does the Minister really believe that he can deliver that


pledge just by using the money from the assisted places scheme? I always believed that he did until I listened carefully to him on Thursday when he said:
We have always made it clear that the pledge will be honoured at the end of the lifetime of this Parliament. By the year 2000, £100 million will be freed up from the assisted places scheme, and that will make an important contribution towards achieving our class sizes pledge."—[Official Report, 5 June 1997; Vol.295, c. 595.]
It is therefore quite clear from that that even the Minister is beginning to doubt whether the money that will be released will be sufficient to achieve what he wants.

Mr. Byers: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that a Parliament normally lasts five years. I do not know whether he needs one of our numeracy hours, but five years will take us to 2002. We shall save £1 million by the turn of the century and the following two years will provide even more money to ensure that we can deliver on our class sizes pledge.

Mr. Foster: If I need a numeracy hour, the Minister certainly does, too. He has just told the House that his proposals will save only £1 million. I am sure that he meant to say £100 million. Never mind, I shall get it right for him.
The Minister cannot deny that many people are concerned about the figures. When the Under-Secretary of State replies to the debate, perhaps she will answer a question that she was asked on Thursday: whether she and the Government are prepared to place in the Library their own estimates of the savings that will be achieved by the abolition of the assisted places scheme and the cost of meeting their pledge. After all, the details of how they plan to deliver have not yet been worked out, and are not likely to be available until the White Paper is published at the end of the month.
The Minister might also like to consider other ways of saving additional money to meet another pledge that we have not heard so much about that may also contribute to reducing class sizes. I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us whether we are shortly to hear about the abolition of the Funding Agency for Schools as that would save some £12.5 million. I do not know whether she has had a chance to look at the report in The Guardian today. If she has not, I thoroughly recommend it.
6.45 pm
The abolition of the Funding Agency for Schools will be supported by Members on both sides of the House when they discover that it is now spending taxpayers money on producing a booklet called "Media Advice Notes for Schools". As The Guardian points out, the advice brings
to mind spoof hints to foreign visitors, such as: don't wait to be served in a British pub—you're expected to help yourself;".
Some of it is quite amazing. It begins:
Contact with your local media is invaluable … Journalists do not generally appreciate large drinks or heavy lunches—but they may well accept an invitation to lunch in the school canteen.
If that is the advice of the Funding Agency for Schools, I suspect that the Government would do well to abolish it quickly and save a bit of extra money to help provide the funding that they will need to deliver on their pledge on class sizes.
On Second Reading, I made it clear that we are not all convinced that the sums add up, but we are prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt. We hope that they will be able to produce the document to which I referred and place it in the Library as quickly as possible. We also believe that, in order to keep track of what the Government are doing and whether they are living up to their pledge, it is vital that local education authorities report annually to the Secretary of State, and that the Secretary of State reports to Parliament. That is the import of the amendments and I hope that they will be supported by the Government and by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Ms Estelle Morris: The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has raised some interesting points. I share his concern about accountability and the House having every opportunity to monitor what the Government are doing and to make sure that we are working towards achieving our clear targets.
It is indeed our intention to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds to 30 by the end of this Parliament—2002. I know that the hon. Gentleman agrees. I look forward to his encouragement and support in our progress towards achieving that aim.
We accept that reports should be made to the House on an annual basis, on policies and financial plans. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that that is already included in the Department's annual report. In that sense the amendments and the new clauses are unnecessary.
I can also give him further assurances—

Mr. Byers: Not too many.

Ms Morris: —but not too many, as my hon. Friend says—that we are not seeking to avoid our responsibility to answer to the House for our actions and to make sure that we keep the pledges that we made to the electorate. I therefore assure him that we shall make arrangements to include in the annual report a section that specifically deals with the progress being made in the phasing out of assisted places and our work toward reducing class sizes.
Turning to amendments Nos. 1 and 2, local authorities already provide annual returns to the Government and much of that information will take into account any changes arising from the phasing out of the assisted places scheme. I hope that the hon. Member for Bath will accept the assurances in the spirit in which they were given. We want to move towards our goal. We have no wish to avoid being answerable to the House for either our policies or our financial needs.

Mr. Don Foster: The Under-Secretary is clearly about to finish her speech, but I think that the House would be interested in answers to the two other questions. Will she place a report in the Library as soon as possible detailing the Government's estimate of the cost of reducing class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds; and what plans does she have for the abolition of the Funding Agency for Schools for England?

Ms Morris: The Funding Agency for Schools for England is not a proper matter for debate either under this group of amendments or the Bill. We shall be addressing


those matters in due course. I know that the hon. Gentleman will look forward to a debate on whatever is announced.
We have made available all the financial information that we are obliged to make available under consideration of the Bill. Our financial plans and policies will be made available in the annual report. Having given those assurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Bath will accept them and withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Foster: Unfortunately, although I am very tempted by the Under-Secretary's assurances, I cannot accept her suggestion to withdraw the amendment. I shall explain clearly why I am not prepared to do so. I asked very simply whether she was prepared to place a detailed analysis of the Government's figures on the likely cost of the reduction of class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds, but her answer was that they have provided all the information that they are required to provide.
We know that the amount of financial information that has been made available in respect of the Bill is very limited and does not answer many of the questions raised. The fear must therefore be that the section of the annual report to which the Under-Secretary referred—I am grateful to her for at least making that commitment—may provide only the bare minimum of information that the Government are required to provide. The House and the country deserve a far more detailed analysis—financial and otherwise—of a very important Government pledge. If we cannot get them to provide such analysis, it is important that the House should decide whether the commitment should be imposed on them. For that reason, I shall press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 38, Noes 340.

Division No. 25]
[6.52 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Keetch, Paul


Baker, Norman
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Ballard, Mrs Jackie



Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)
Kirkwood, Archy


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Brake, Thomas
Moore, Michael


Brand, Dr Peter
Oaten, Mark


Breed, Colin
Opik, Lembit


Burnett, John
Rendel, David


Burstow, Paul
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Chidgey, David
 Sanders, Adrian



Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Cotter, Brian
Thompson, William


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Fearn, Ronnie
Wallace, James


Forsythe, Clifford
Webb, Steven


Foster, Don (Bath)
Willis, Phil


Gorrie, Donald



Harris, Dr Evan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Harvey, Nick
Mr. Paul Tyler and


Heath, David (Somerton)
Mr. Andrew Standell.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Armstrong, Ms Hilary


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Ashton, Joe


Ainger, Nick
Atherton, Ms Candy


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Atkins, Ms Charlotte


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Barnes, Harry


Anderson, Janet (Ros'dale)
Barron, Kevin





Battle, John
Denham, John


Bayley, Hugh
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Beard, Nigel
Dismore, Andrew


Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)
Dobbin, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Bennett, Andrew F
Donohoe, Brian H


Benton, Joe
Doran, Frank


Bermingham, Gerald
Dowd, Jim


Berry, Roger
Drew, David


Best, Harold
Drown, Ms Julia


Blackman, Mrs Liz
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Blears, Ms Hazel
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Blizzard, Robert
Edwards, Huw


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Efford, Clive


Borrow, David
Ellman, Ms Louise


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Ennis, Jeff


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Etherington, Bill


Bradshaw, Ben
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Fisher, Mark


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E & Wallsend)
Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna



Flint, Ms Caroline


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Flynn, Paul


Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)
Follett, Ms Barbara


Burden, Richard
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Burgon, Colin
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Butler, Christine
Foster, Michael John (Worcester)


Byers, Stephen
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Galbraith, Sam


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Galloway, George


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gapes, Mike


Canavan, Dennis
Gardiner, Barry


Cann, Jamie
Gerrard, Neil


Caplin, Ivor
Gibson, Dr Ian


Casale, Roger
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Caton, Martin
Godman, Dr Norman A


Cawsey, Ian
Godsrff, Roger


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chaytor, David
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Chisholm, Malcolm
Graham, Thomas


Clapham, Michael
Griffiths, Ms Jane (Reading E)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)



Grocott, Bruce


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Grogan, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hain, Peter


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clelland, David
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hanson, David


Coaker, Vernon
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Coffey, Ms Ann
Healey, John


Cohen, Harry
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Colman, Anthony (Putney)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Connarty, Michael
Hepburn, Stephen


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Heppell, John


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Hesford, Stephen


Cooper, Ms Yvette
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Corbett, Robin
Hill, Keith


Corston, Ms Jean
Hinchliffe, David


Cousins, Jim
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cranston, Ross
Hoey, Kate


Crausby, David
Home Robertson, John


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hood, Jimmy


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hope, Philip


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Curtis-Thomas, Ms Clare
Hoyle, Lindsay


Darvill, Keith
Hughes, Ms Beverley (StretfordA Urmston)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)



Davidson, Ian
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Hurst, Alan


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Hutton, John


Dawson, Hilton
Iddon, Brian


Dean, Ms Janet
Illsley, Eric






Ingram, Adam
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)
Mounttord, Ms Kali


Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)
Mudie, George


Jamieson, David
Mullin, Chris


Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)
Murphy, Dennis (Wansbeck)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Johnson, Ms Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)



Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Olner, Bill


Jones, Ms Jenny(Wolverh'ton SW)
Organ, Mrs Diana



Osborne, Mrs Sandra


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Pickthall, Colin


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pike, Peter L


Keeble, Ms Sally
Plaskitt, James


Keen, Alan (Feltham)
Pollard, Kerry


Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)
Pond, Chris


Kemp, Fraser
Pope, Greg


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pound, Stephen


Khabra, Piara S
Powell, Sir Raymond


Kidney, David
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


King, Andy (Rugby)
Prosser, Gwyn


King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green)
Purchase, Ken


Kingham, Tessa
Quinn, Lawrie


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rammell, Bill


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Rapson, Syd


Laxton, Bob
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Lepper, David
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Leslie, Christopher
Robertson, Rt Hon George


Levitt, Tom(Hamilton S)



Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Rogers, Allan


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Rooker, Jeff


Linton, Martin
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Livingstone, Ken
Rowlands, Ted


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Roy, Frank


McAllion, John
Ruane, Chris


McAvoy, Thomas
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McCabe, Stephen
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Salter, Martin


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Savidge, Malcolm


McDonagh, Ms Siobhain
Sawford, Phil


Maodonald, Calum
Sedgemore, Brian


McDonnell, John
Shaw, Jonathan


McFall, John
Sheerman, Barry


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McIsaac, Ms Shona
Shipley, Ms Debra


McMaster, Gordon
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McNulty, Tony
Singh, Marsha


MacShane, Denis
Skinner, Dennis


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)


McWalter, Tony
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


McWilliam, John
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Mahon, Mrs Alice



Mallaber, Ms Judy
Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)


Mandelson, Peter
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Marek, Dr John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Soley, Clive


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Squire, Ms Rachel


Martlew, Eric
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Maxton, John
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Michael, Alun
Stinchcombe, Paul


Milburn, Alan
Stoate, Dr Howard


Miller, Andrew
Stott, Roger


Mitchell, Austin
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Moffatt, Laura
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stringer, Graham


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
(Dewsbury)





Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Whitehead, Alan


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan(Swansea W)


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)



Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Williams, Dr Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Timms, Stephen



Tipping, Paddy
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Todd, Mark
Wills, Michael


Touhig, Don
Wilson, Brian


Trickett, Jon
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Truswell, Paul
Wise, Audrey


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Wood, Mike


Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)
Woolas, Phil


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Worthington, Tony


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)


Walley, Ms Joan
Wyatt, Derek


Ward, Ms Claire



Wareing, Robert N
Tellers for the Noes:


Watts, David
Mr. Clive Betts and


White, Brian
Mr. Graham Allen.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clauses 3 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 2

POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE TO ASSIST PUPILS

`Nothing in this Act shall prevent a local authority from reimbursing a former participating school in respect of the fees of any pupil resident in the area of that local authority whom the authority determines may benefit from education at that school.'.—[Mr. St. Aubyn.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 3—Power of charity to continue to assist pupils—
'—(1) Nothing in this Act shall prevent a charity from reimbursing either—
(a) a former participating school, or
(b) a local authority,
in respect of the fees of any pupil resident in the area of that local authority whom the authority determines may benefit from education at that school.
(2) Expenditure by a charity in making a reimbursement under subsection (1) above shall be charitable expenditure within the meaning of section 44 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993.'

Mr. St. Aubyn: I have found out about powers that the House has that, as a new Member, I had not dreamed I would be learning about so soon. I am very grateful to the Public Bills Office for its assistance in drafting the new clauses. I apologise if they are deficient, but they come from a new Back Bencher. I should like to explain their purpose.
In the debate in Committee, Conservatives have felt that we were dealing with closed minds in the Government. I hope that the Ministers will take the opportunity of the new clauses to show that they do not have closed minds and that they are prepared to listen to points that are made consistently and in a heartfelt way by Opposition Members. When a point with which Ministers feel that they can agree is made, I hope that they are prepared to listen. I hope that that will prove to be the case with the new clauses.
I also hope that the Liberal Democrats, bearing in mind what they said about their support for local partnership schemes in their manifesto, will give their support to the new clause.

Mr. Don Foster: If it enables the hon. Gentleman to move on, I can assure him that, if the new clauses are pressed to a vote, he will get the support of the Liberal Democrats.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that assurance. It is welcome and, no doubt, it will add weight to the arguments that I shall put to the Government.
While it may go against the grain for a new Labour Government to use funds from the Department for Education and Employment to meet the costs of the assisted places scheme, we have already established in debate that the additional cost, over the standard cost of education in the state sector, is no more than around £1,000 per child per year. I may be being optimistic, but in certain areas—including my area in Surrey—it might be possible to find charities or companies to put up the money, or to use funds and bursaries from the schools involved in the scheme, to bridge the gap of £1,000 per year. Such charities, companies or bursaries would not be able to meet the much greater cost of nearly £4,000 a year that would arise if all the funding for the scheme were withdrawn. We should not forget, however, that in that case the state sector would still have to pick the tab for educating the children in state schools
It should also be clear to Ministers that, however comforting the calculations made in their offices by civil servants, the impact of the scheme in certain areas is much greater than in others. While the scheme has not taken root in a big way in the areas that Labour Members represent, it has filled a need in areas about which they do not have the same knowledge but which we represent. That is why we have argued against the Bill hour after hour, and sought an extra day of debate.
I will give some examples. In the county of Surrey, there are 1,264 children on the assisted places scheme in 22 schools. In contrast, in Buckinghamshire there are just nine children at one school involved in the scheme. If we consider our cities, they tell the same story. In the city of Bristol, there are nearly 1,500 children involved in nine schools; yet in the much larger city of Birmingham there are barely 600 children involved in just six schools.
Just as the take-up of assisted places is concentrated in certain areas, the problems and difficulties created by winding down the scheme would also be concentrated. The problem is made worse because of the decision already made today that the education of those on the scheme in the primary sector will end at the age of 11. That will mean that, as the scheme is phased out, all the burden on the local state sector will be borne by one year group—year seven. While we heard some comforting numbers from the Minister the other day about the tiny percentage of children involved who will be shifted from the independent sector to state schools, in Guildford the year group numbers will be inflated by nearly 10 per cent. That is why the pressures of the scheme need a valve to relieve them.
In Surrey, we have other pressures. We already have rising school rolls. This afternoon I spoke to the chairman of Surrey county council education committee, who said

that we will have to find an extra £3 million to cope with the rising school numbers in the state system, even before the effect of the abolition of the scheme. While the marginal cost of educating a child in the state sector at secondary school and in sixth form may be only £2,700, that does not take account of capital expenditure. The rise in numbers will not be absorbed by schools in my area without incurring further capital expenditure. It is clear that there are many reasons why certain local authorities would be keen to see the scheme continued.
I am conscious that we have heard from some Labour Members that they are against the assisted places scheme in principle, and not just because of the savings that they claim will be achieved to help primary schools. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) has said:
My main reason for wanting to get rid of the assisted places scheme is that it perpetuates the class system."— [Official Report, 2 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 46.]
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has told us that this is a socialist Bill. We know that, but the Government are new Labour and we hope that they will listen to our points.
7.15 pm
Labour Members may believe that the scheme is divisive in their areas, but the assisted places scheme, far from being divisive, gives children in my constituency a wider choice and opportunity. They are lucky to have good state schools and they are also lucky to have the choice of assisted places. Independent education is extremely popular in my area. Nearly one in five families choose to send their children to independent schools. In such an area, the scheme is not divisive. I recognise, of course, that the area that I represent is fortunate.
If the Government wish to make savings on assisted places to give more money to primary schools to achieve the class sizes that have already been achieved in Surrey, they are entitled to do so. However, the purpose of the new clauses is to ask the Government not to be dogmatic and to leave some flexibility for local education authorities, such as Surrey, to try to bridge the gap of £1,000 a year that an assisted place costs on average through independent funding.
If we can find that funding from somewhere, why should the Government stand in the way? The Government will still make the savings that they have budgeted for on behalf of primary schools. In fact, given the doubts that we have cast on the savings, the real risk is that by pressing ahead with the scheme now you will not make those savings because of the knock-on effects of winding down the scheme. It is in your interests as much as in ours and our constituents' to allow the flexibility that the new clauses will provide.
New clause 2 would make it clear that local authorities could take the initiative and continue with a form of the assisted places scheme. The purpose of new clause 3 is to provide for a wide range of sources of funding to bridge the gap between the standard cost of a secondary school education and that of an assisted place. It would ensure that the widest possible range of sources of funding would be achieved.
I believe that it was a Government press release that, only a couple of weeks ago, talked of allowing lottery funds to be used to promote education, health and other


initiatives that fell outside the services provided by taxation. There could be no clearer example of an initiative that, on your own definition, falls outside—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is a new Member, but he keeps using the words "you" and "your". The matters under discussion are not my responsibility.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Lord. I will try to remember it.
I was trying to explain that the Government issued a press release clearly setting out the case for lottery funding, among other sources, to be used for initiatives that they do not consider should fall within the ambit of their departmental spending—a decision that, as a Government, they are entitled to make. Surely, if there is any initiative which deserves such funding, it must be the initiative that I am suggesting.
The new clause does not demand or instruct that lottery funds be used to provide money for the assisted places; it merely leaves open avenues that should be left open, in a free and open society in which the Government do not seek to dictate the minutiae of how individual local authorities and areas seek to answer educational needs as best they can, by meeting the challenge of providing a good education in their areas.
I would welcome a contribution by the Minister for School Standards, if he would like to make one, before I press the new clause to a vote.

Mr. Byers: First, I welcome the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), to the Committee. We missed her last week, and I am delighted to see that she is now in robust good health.
On new clause 3, the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) talked about the potential for using the proceeds from the national lottery to replace the funding now available through the assisted places scheme. That shows the fundamental difference concerning the way in which the Government wish to use the proceeds from the national lottery.
We have been greatly concerned that in the past the proceeds were often used to fund the pet projects of individuals, which did not reflect the interests or needs of the nation at large. The lottery was used to buy the Churchill papers, for example, and for other types of spending that we feel do not suit what should be the people's lottery. We want to see the resources gained from people playing the people's lottery devoted to causes that have broad popular support. I have to tell the hon. Member for Guildford that I do not believe that using the proceeds of the lottery to replace the assisted places scheme would be applauded throughout the country.
People play the lottery, obviously, in the hope of winning, but also in the belief that some of the profits will be used for good causes. In my view—the hon. Gentleman may disagree with it—a new form of assisted places scheme funded by the national lottery would not be regarded as a good use of the proceeds of the national lottery. The Labour party believes that the lottery should

be used to improve aspects that go beyond statutory provision, but which can in real terms add genuine quality to our provision for young people.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Surely the idea of children from low-income families getting an extra opportunity is entirely in keeping with the thinking behind the lottery.

Mr. Byers: The Government are determined that all children will be offered a high-quality education. That is the real challenge that we face in government. There should be no question of a small group of individual children, whether from low-income families or not, receiving a quality of education denied to other young people.
That is why we have had the debate today and last Thursday. which has demonstrated clearly the fundamental divisions between the present Government and the Members who now sit on the Opposition Benches. They had responsibility for the education service for 18 years, and although I concede that they offered a good quality of education to a handful of young people, for the vast majority they offered a quality of education that my hon. Friends and I find unacceptable.

Mr. John Hayes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Byers: In a second.
We must turn that round, and in the process we shall use the funds from the assisted places scheme to make a positive contribution.
In addition, as we have said, we shall use money from the national lottery for other purposes. For example, it can fund homework clubs where young people can have support in doing their homework in a quiet environment after school hours. We believe that, in providing for that, we shall add real quality to the education that young children receive.

Mr. Hayes: The Minister described as "poor quality" the education offered to many children over the past 18 years. Does he concede that that was, at least in part, the responsibility of local education authorities most of which were controlled by the Labour party for much of the past 18 years?
Secondly, will he define for us the difference between what he regards as core provision—in which I would include homework—and what he regards as somehow outside core provision, so that homework clubs can legitimately be funded as he describes?

Mr. Byers: Well—

Mr. Hayes: That was two interventions for the price of one.

Mr. Byers: Yes, but it should be a question of quality rather than quantity. Both his interventions show that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who is a new Member, has forgotten the policies of the Conservative Government, who refused to take action on homework. When we were in opposition, we argued that there should at least be guidance on homework. The then Government rejected that idea.
We recognised the importance of homework in terms of developing education opportunities for young people, but that was not the view taken by the Conservative Government. We were disappointed by their negative response. As things stand, homework is not part of statutory provision, but there should be an expensive network of homework clubs, and we shall use the proceeds of the national lottery to support such initiatives.
We do not believe that new clause 3 shows a proper way forward, or that lottery funds should be used to buy places in the private sector. On new clause 2, I hope that I can offer some comfort to the hon. Member for Guildford—certainly in line with the spirit in which he introduced it.
However, before I do so, I shall pick up two of the points that the hon. Gentleman made. He mentioned a meeting that he had with the chairman of Surrey education committee, who expressed concern about the increase in pupil numbers in the county and the impact that that would have on its education budget. We too are worried about the effects of rising pupil numbers—we have been for some years. That is why we argued long and hard against the policies of the Conservative Government, who failed to take any account of rising pupil numbers.
The hon. Gentleman may like to know that, in the past 10 years, the pupil population has increased by 450,000; at the same time, the number of teachers has fallen by 6,000. That is because the Conservative Government failed, as I say, to take into consideration the impact of higher pupil numbers. Hence many of us regard it as richly ironic that the hon. Member for Guildford should argue his case as he does.
The hon. Member for Guildford mentioned the number of students in his constituency with assisted places. He is right to say that there are more of them in Guildford than almost anywhere else in the country. Indeed, my officials calculate that there are about 259—

Mr. St. Aubyn: The true figure is 374.

Mr. Byers: My officials had great difficulty coming up with a precise figure. The figure that I have quoted relates to the number of young people actually attending schools in Guildford on assisted places. There appears to be a discrepancy in the figures, and I am prepared to accept the hon. Gentleman's version. Either way, it is considerably higher than the national average.
The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that there are nearly 7,000 infants in classes of more than 30 in Surrey. In this Government's view, we should be tackling class sizes for those children, using money that currently goes to the fewer than 400 on assisted places.

Mr. St. Aubyn: The average primary school class size in Surrey is only 26, and four out of five classes contain 30 or fewer children. The problem is that, to meet the Government's target of a maximum 30 per class, more of the 7,000 children that the Minister mentioned will be required to accept their parents' second or third choice of school. That may involve travelling further so as to bring some classes up to 30 and keep others down to 30. Some bright children may be pushed into higher years, while other children may be asked to move down to a lower

year. All of this will be necessary to meet the Government's target, because there will be no extra money for teachers in Surrey.

Mr. Byers: We shall deal with some of those issues in the White Paper that we intend to publish towards the end of this month or at the beginning of next month. We shall consult extensively, talking to authorities such as Surrey's to ensure that we put in place a scheme that will deliver smaller classes without causing difficulties for parental preference.
The main point made by the hon. Member for Guildford concerned giving local authorities the power to use their resources to pay for places in the independent sector. I intend to ask the Committee to reject new clause 2, because it is unnecessary to include its provisions in the Bill, given that the Scholarship and Other Benefit Regulations 1977, made under section 518 of the Education Act 1996, already give LEAs the discretion to pay the whole or part of tuition fees, boarding or lodging fees, and other expenses relating to the attendance of a pupil at a fee-paying school. Those regulations cover most of what the hon. Member for Guildford sought.
If the local authority wants to use the money that it raises locally for this purpose, that is for it to decide. It will be held accountable by Surrey people, if that is how it wants to spend money from the education budget. The authority has the freedom to exercise that power—

Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the Minister make it absolutely clear that, if the local authority decides to provide a place for a child at a fee-paying school and can bridge the gap between the cost of a place at the state school and the cost of a place at the independent school by raising the money from charity, sponsorship and so on to do so, the Department will still refund the local authority to the tune of at least the standard cost of such a child's education, had he or she remained in the state sector?

Mr. Byers: That is a quite different point, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows. A child attending an independent school will not trigger a payment for standard spending assessment purposes, and we have no plans to change that arrangement. I therefore cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. What I can say is that existing regulations allow local authorities to bear the full costs of a place in the independent sector—and rightly so. The hon. Gentleman is trying to move us on to a different debate which may not be entirely in order this evening.

Mr. St. Aubyn: As I pointed out earlier, the standard spending assessment cost is critical. If the local authority is paid that cost, it is entirely realistic in areas such as ours to hope that the additional cost of sending the child to a fee-paying school can be met—

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Interventions must be brief. The hon. Gentleman cannot make a speech during an intervention.

Mr. Byers: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. The local authority must carry the full cost of exercising its discretion.
I hope that I have been able to reassure the hon. Member for Guildford, at least in part. I know that I have not been able to give him complete satisfaction, but I can at least say that the power he wants to give to local authorities already exists. We can see no merit in including such a provision in the Bill, because it merely duplicates a power already in existence.
I ask the Committee to reject the new clause if it is pressed to a Division.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: The Liberal Democrats support the new clauses, on the grounds that they are simply common sense. The Government have said that they want a smooth and sensitive transition from where we are to where we want to be. The new clauses would facilitate such a responsible transition.
We would be completely opposed, however, to the provisions being used as an opportunity to reintroduce the assisted places scheme by the back door. Nevertheless, there must be sufficient flexibility in the system to ensure that children who in some exceptional circumstance can benefit from a special opportunity for study are allowed to do so.
There must be an element of trusting local authorities: we must believe that they would not necessarily abuse the additional provisions. If we cannot trust authorities to make responsible decisions, there is a great problem in our education structure.

Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman says that the Liberal Democrats support the new clauses. Do they support new clause 3 and the use of lottery funds to buy places in the private sector?

Mr. Öpik: If that led to the simple replacement of the assisted places scheme with a similar scheme paid for by the lottery, absolutely not. We are saying that the provisions could provide a way for the Government to honour their commitment to a strict spending package and yet provide local authorities with some flexibility, ensuring that the people who benefit from the special educational opportunity can survive. I emphasise again that we are with the Government on abolition of the assisted places scheme: we do not support its reintroduction.
We are concerned about being seen to be fair. We want local authorities to have some limited flexibility to make such decisions. The Minister has reassured us about the provision that already exists. If that provides the flexibility that we seek to achieve through the new clause, perhaps that is a satisfactory solution, but if there is a failure to honour that flexibility in the long term, we shall be uncomfortable about it.
We support the new clause on the assumption that the provisions represent a sensible way in which to proceed, but we do not want assisted places to be supported wholesale by the national lottery.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), and I welcome the Minister's comments, as far as they go, but I am afraid that we have witnessed a loss of nerve tonight. The imaginative course would be to leave open a variety of

opportunity in the Bill, when it is being offered on terms which do not jeopardise the plans to increase spending on primary school teachers.
It is a great pity because, in the Minister's narrow interpretation of a local authority's existing powers we heard a sharp closing down of the scheme and of the opportunities that it would give to children over and above those that we all want to give them in the state sector. I am, however, grateful to him for making it clear that all the local authorities' powers may be used to create what we might still loosely term assisted places and the Government will not stand in the way.
Having secured some clarification and assistance, with as much grace as I can, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Order for Third Reading read.

Ms Estelle Morris: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill is one of the first of the new Government. It shows our commitment to education and our determination to have an education service that raises standards for the many, not the few. It makes it absolutely clear that we have turned our back on policies based on the belief that only a few can succeed or that to reach the top one has to escape from the maintained sector.
The Bill will release funds that we will use to cut to 30 or fewer class sizes for all five, six and seven-year-olds. That pledge was one of the reasons why the people elected us to govern. Today, less than six weeks after the general election, we are passing legislation that will provide the resources to enable us to keep our promise.
Throughout our consideration of the Bill, we have been reminded that the maintained sector was run for the past 18 years by a Government who did not believe in its potential. We share the understandable concern that children should attend schools where they can achieve at the highest levels. We differ, in that Conservative Members such as the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) believe that that cannot be done in the state sector.
Bright children pass examinations, go to universities and other institutions of further learning and take posts in all walks of life, at all levels, with all sorts of responsibilities, having been educated and given their life chances in the state system. The challenge for our country is not to devise ways of helping some to escape to the private sector but to ensure that all our pupils get the standard of education that can currently be found in the best of our state schools.
The resources that will be released through the Bill will be used to give a better start to the 440,000 five, six and seven-year-olds who are currently in classes of more than 30. Class sizes matter. They matter most in the early years, because children can get more attention, more teacher time and more space, and they can be taught in more manageable groups. It is not the only thing that matters and will not by itself solve all the problems that


we face in our education service, but we believe that it is a crucial part of our overall plans to raise standards for our children.
No one can be surprised by the contents of the Bill. As was drawn to our attention on Second Reading, we have opposed the assisted places scheme every single year since it was introduced. Private schools have had every opportunity to prepare for the removal of the subsidy. In any case, the Bill fulfils our promise to protect the interests of those children who are currently in the scheme or who have already been offered places to start in the next academic year.
The previous Government presided over steadily rising class sizes. Much has been said by Conservative Members about the number of assisted places in their constituencies. They have not spoken about the five, six and seven-year-olds in their constituencies who will benefit from a reduction in class size: 7,000 in the area that includes the constituency of Chesham and Amersham; 4,000 children in the area that includes the constituency of the shadow Secretary of State; and almost 50 per cent. of the children in Bromley, which includes the constituency of the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).

Mrs. Gillan: Will the hon. Lady confirm that there are no assisted places in her constituency, that of the Minister for School Standards or that of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment? Is she not happy to introduce the measure because she knows that it does not affect any of her constituents?

Ms Morris: That comment does not deserve an answer, but I shall answer it.
We were elected to speak for the people of this country, for parents who wanted opportunities for their children and who were fed up with finding that their children were not getting the best chance at infant school because they were in large classes. I have every confidence that what we have said during the Bill's passage will be welcomed by parents and teachers who, like us, want to give a good start to all our children. Our belief in the inherent value of every child, and in the potential of every child to achieve, is different from the values of Conservative Members, which are vested in the potential of only a few children.
If I thought for one minute that the brightest children could not achieve in the state sector, I would not support the Bill. The brightest children can achieve. The children of the Lady's constituents and of those of other hon. Members have gone on to achieve great things. If she had shown the same passion for the state system that she has shown for the independent sector during the Bill's passage, I confidently believe that we would not have inherited a system in chaos.
We speak for parents, for children and for all people who want high standards for everyone. When the Conservatives had the chance to do something about class size, for their constituents or for ours, they did nothing. We will take action. The Bill honours a pledge to the electorate on assisted places. It confirms our determination to make education our highest priority. The resources that it will release will help in our drive to raise standards. It is a good Bill; the House has had the opportunity to consider it; and it will be welcomed by the public. I commend it to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Nine hon. Members wish to make their maiden speeches. May I ask more experienced Members to assist me, because I wish to call as many maiden speakers as possible who have been in the Chamber all day?

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I thank the Minister for School Standards for his kind words. I apologise for my absence, which was enforced by antibiotics, from Committee last Thursday. To judge from the Official Report, there was a thorough discussion, at least by Opposition Members, of some aspects of the Bill's intentions, although there was little clarification of its practical effects from the Government.
It is a matter of regret that the passage of the Bill so far reinforces the somewhat unattractive reputation that the Government have earned in the few short weeks since the general election. They have earned a reputation for seeking to disregard the parliamentary process; for an over-mighty attitude towards the conventions of the House; for a determination to drive through dogma-led policies, regardless of the consequences for individuals, institutions or local education authorities; for an inability on the part of Ministers to answer the simplest of questions about the means by which their ends are to be achieved; and for a reliance instead on the use of soundbites as solutions.
On disregarding the parliamentary process, the Bill was published on the first day of the spring bank holiday recess, when the House was not sitting. The compliance cost assessment was not made available in time for Second Reading. The Government attempted to compress all debate on the Bill into just one and a half days. Information requested through written parliamentary questions was not made available for Committee, truncated as it was, until points of order were raised. To judge from the Official Report of Friday's proceedings, a rather irritable business statement had to be wrung out of the Leader of the House so that the Bill could proceed this week.

Mr. Byers: It is important to clarify the point about parliamentary questions. Answers to parliamentary questions can be provided by 3.30 pm at the earliest, and very often, as Government Members who have been in opposition well know, they are often not received until nearer 10 pm. The parliamentary questions to which replies were made last Thursday were handed to Opposition Front Benchers by 4.30 pm at the latest so that they had the information to take part in the debate. It is misleading to say that answers to parliamentary questions should be received at 3.30 pm; it is 3.30 pm at the earliest.

Mrs. Shephard: I was not aware that I had made that point. I merely said that answers to parliamentary questions were not delivered until asked for. The Minister will agree that that is the case.
The Government say that this is only a seven-clause Bill, the implication being that time need not have been devoted to debating it. They also say, and Ministers have reiterated today, that the Bill is very important. We agree, because it is about the principles of freedom and choice


in education. Those words have been curiously absent from the enormous thesaurus of statements of reviews and announcements which have poured out of Ministers' mouths since 2 May. It is significant that, although the Government claim that they attach importance to the Bill, they do not attach so much importance to it that they wanted to have more than a one and a half day debate on it. Nor did they wish that its provisions should be subjected to the proper scrutiny of a full Committee stage upstairs.
To judge from the Official Report  and from today's proceedings, Government Members are entirely uncritical of the Bill's effects on their constituents, their local education authorities and their maintained schools. They apparently have no questions about when class sizes may be reduced, by how much or by what means. That is fortunate for Ministers, because they have no answers.
Let us turn to the substance and purpose of the Bill. It is designed to reduce choice and opportunity for children from poorer backgrounds who could benefit from a different route through education in a different sort of school. On that we are agreed. The difference between the Opposition and the Government is that we know that choice and variety in education help to drive up standards, while the Government choose to deny it, except in some cases where their own children are concerned. As I said on Second Reading, the Government are motivated by that old Labour principle: if all cannot have, none should. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said on Second Reading that it is a socialist Bill. We agree.
The Government have been unable to explain why they have gone back on the commitment made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle). I do not propose to rehearse the arguments about that, because they were thoroughly debated earlier. I heard what the Secretary of State said. I certainly do not regard him as dishonourable, but it is absolutely clear from the letter of the hon. Member for Walton, who was then one his shadow team, and from the letter sent to a constituent by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett), that it used to be Labour party policy to allow children to continue with their education until 13. It was a pledge in the clearest terms. It is now equally clear that the pledge will not be honoured. The great question is, given the Secretary of State's emphasis on his discretion, for whom will the promise be kept? That question cannot be answered—like so much else today.
In even more lamentable responses to questioning by Conservative Members, Ministers have been totally unable to explain the following: exactly how much money would be saved from the abolition of the assisted places scheme; when, year by year, the savings would become available; and the discrepancy between their hope for savings of £100 million by the end of the century and the calculations of the Institute of Public Finance of savings of just £34 million, and that is without taking into account the implications for capital spending. They seem, by their silence on the subject, to have declined to place in the House Library a detailed explanation of that discrepancy. Perhaps we can hope for some answers when the Minister for School Standards winds up.
The same airy vagueness surrounds the Government's unsatisfactory responses to the problems of individual local education authorities, which will result from the scheme's abolition. It is clear from the Library research paper that the effect on different LEAs will vary enormously. Perhaps the Minister for School Standards will explain how the Government propose to cope with that.
My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) asked the Minister for School Standards how many additional primary teachers would be provided from the abolition of the assisted places scheme. His answer was masterly in its character of non-sequitur. No doubt, it was provided by the Department, but it was signed by the Minister, who is smiling—I think that he remembers, therefore. When asked how many additional teachers would be provided from the abolition of the assisted places scheme, he replied:
It will be for individual LEAs to judge what adjustments will be needed to primary teacher numbers to ensure smaller classes.
I am sure that he will explain how it is that, somehow or another, one of them signed the wrong answer to the right question.
I suggest to the Minister that LEAs will be interested to know how much money is coming to them from the abolition of the assisted places scheme, when and in what form. I suggest to LEAs that they should not hold their collective breath—they are not likely to get an answer.
With her customary passion, which I respect, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), has expressed on a number of occasions her firm belief that the Bill will help all children. If that is her belief and that of her colleagues, is it not time that we had some answers on how? Labour Members have on many occasions employed the soundbite—or something like it—that the Bill is intended to benefit the many at the expense of the few. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who is not in his place, seemed to have swallowed that argument.
If that is the view of Ministers, surely they should by now have at least some hazy idea of how they intend the many to benefit. Can they say when the savings will be made—in which academic year—and how many additional primary teachers can be appointed and when? Can they announce a target for the reduction in the size of primary classes? Can they say if, and how, they would ring-fence the money for LEAs? Can they say if they would impose from the centre standard admission arrangements? Can they say how parental choice would be maintained, although I see that that would hardly be their priority? Can they describe how an appeals procedure would have to be changed?
The truth of the matter is that the House is being asked to agree to the destruction of the assisted places scheme, the destruction of choice and opportunity for children whose parents want them to take that route and the destruction of excellence in order, to use the Minister's words, to benefit the many when they do not have the least idea how to bring that benefit about.
The Government have cynically sought to limit debate and to disregard the conventions of the House in order not to reveal the fact that they cannot deliver the


improvements that they have promised. The Bill is dictated by class envy and dogma. It is destructive of choice and excellence. It will not work, and we oppose it.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: As the newly elected Member for Waveney, I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech on a subject that is dear to my heart and to follow the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), in whose county I have taught for the past 11 years.
Waveney is distinguished by being the most easterly constituency in the United Kingdom and I have the honour of being the second Labour Member to be elected in the history of the constituency, which was formerly known as Lowestoft. Edward Evans was the first Labour Member, and he served from 1945 to 1959. He is still fondly remembered as a kind, caring and dedicated Member of Parliament.
Following my success on 1 May, I was delighted to receive a letter of congratulation and support from the chairman of Adnams, the fine Suffolk brewers and wine merchants, especially as he reminded me that his grandfather, Pierce Loftus, was the Member of Parliament for Lowestoft between 1934 and 1945, although he was a Conservative.
Probably the most famous Member to represent Waveney is the present Lord Prior, who is held in the highest regard even among many Labour voters. I pay tribute also to my predecessor, David Porter, who was a diligent constituency Member. He was proud to represent the area in which he was born and grew up and, as hon. Members will know, he spoke out regularly for the fishing industry. We have lived near each other for 10 years—I as his councillor and he as my Member of Parliament. It is a tribute to him that, despite being adversaries for so long, it was easy to maintain a courteous and dignified relationship, which extended to a reasonably civilised election campaign.
Waveney—when one finds out where it is—contains the main town of Lowestoft, which is immediately associated with fishing, but there is so much more to our area. Indeed, we want to correct the image of a declining fishing industry. Lowestoft is Britain's most easterly point. That is not as widely known as it should be, and the local district council, which I have had the privilege of leading for the past six years, has been making efforts to try to emulate Land's End in both visitor numbers and the economic benefits that such visitors will bring.
Lowestoft has the best beach in England. That is official, because it won the competition organised by the English tourist board in 1991—the fact that the competition has not been held since is fortuitous for our town. We also have the beautiful Oulton broad, which is part of the Broads national park.
Industry is important too. Our geographical position marks Lowestoft as Britain's most easterly port, pointing straight at Europe, with the opportunities that that could bring us. It is also home to the southern fields headquarters of Shell. Bird's Eye and Sanyo are also located in the town.
Beccles is in the constituency. It is a Suffolk market town of real character, with historic buildings and a riverside quay on the Waveney, which gives the

constituency its name. Recently, Beccles had new fame, being the home town of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell). The people of Beccles were full of congratulations for his victory.
Bungay is another historic market town with a castle. Two or three weeks ago, it celebrated the election of its first mayor. It is also home to the printing press that printed the Prime Minister's book, last year.
Overall, Waveney has a most pleasant environment, hence the recent marketing slogan for industry, "Room to breathe". The people of Waveney are as loyal and hard-working as one will find anywhere, yet, unfortunately, they suffer the blight of high and sustained unemployment. Waveney is often called the black spot of East Anglia. Unemployment has been double the regional average for 15 years. The people there are fed up. They ask, "Why us?"
Once Waveney was a thriving area, with shipbuilding, fishing, engineering and canning. Many hon. Members will remember that Waveney was the trademark on the Co-op cans that they bought some years ago. Those industries have gone, but they have not been replaced because of the absence of modern transport links to a remote and peripheral location. The roads to Lowestoft are poor and the railways are worse. Lowestoft is cursed by a lift-up bridge on the trunk road in the middle of the town, which is raised more than 13 times each day, bringing commercial activity to a standstill—I believe, a unique situation in the country.
The people in Waveney feel neglected and left behind by the failure of Government to modernise transport in our corner of the country. They will be looking to the new Government to rectify that. I intend to pursue the cause vigorously in the House.
The youngsters in Waveney are not badly educated. Despite enforced cuts, Suffolk county council has done its best to maintain funding above the standard spending assessment level. Parents and pupils generally respect schools and teachers, who in turn are proud of their achievements. But there is also a feeling that education in my constituency could be much better, and my constituents welcome the Government's crusade to raise standards. They are enormously relieved that a stable comprehensive system, brought in by a Conservative county council many years ago, will not be disrupted by the introduction of grammar schools and the extension of education vouchers beyond the nursery phase.
I have just entered Parliament after 25 years as a teacher in secondary and high schools. I know from my experience that when pupils enter secondary education at 11 or 12 with unsolved literacy or numeracy problems—when they have fallen behind—it is usually too late to remedy the situation. Sadly, experience shows that the likelihood of them catching up is not good. It is all too often a tragic story of continued weakness, low achievement and, sometimes, a failure to gain any qualifications—in short, it is a waste of human potential.
The Government are therefore right to concentrate on the early years. The Bill's targeting of resources on the early years in order to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds puts the money where it will be of most benefit. It will also complement the provision of more nursery places, using the money that was wasted on voucher bureaucracy.
Class size does count—my experience tells me that, all teachers know it and more and more parents know it. As parents spend more time helping in schools, they see for themselves that class size is important. Pupils also know that class size matters. When a youngster remarks on a day when many children are off school with 'flu, "It's nice in here today, sir," he is making a statement on class size. Large numbers in class mean that space can run out and discipline and safety standards can deteriorate.
Some people try to deny that class size makes a difference, but those same people defend small classes in the schools to which pupils are sent under the assisted places scheme. As we have heard, some hon. Members mourn the demise of the assisted places scheme, but even they know that resources are finite and we have to make the best use of them. It is sensible and fair to spend resources on the many, not the few. That policy also meets the needs of the nation at the end of the century. Our nation no longer needs simply an educated elite, with many less well-educated manual workers, as happened in the 1950s. Times have changed.
When I consider my education, I realise that I had an assisted place, although it was not called that. I attended a direct grant school and was referred to as someone from a less advantaged background. My father's only connection with the school was that he did some of the signwriting on the honours boards. I know that I had a good education at that school, and I have analysed what made it good. Was it the teachers? I have seen many teachers over 25 years, and when I consider my teachers I realise that some were good, some were ordinary and some were not very good at all. Was it the facilities? There were excellent sports facilities, but facilities in the classroom were not special. Was it the books? No. There were plenty of dog-eared books with broken spines. What made my—assisted place—education good was the fact that the class sizes were small.
It is fitting that the Government will use state money from the assisted places scheme to reduce class sizes for so many children. There is something wrong if a Government, charged with the responsibility for state education, simply say that they cannot provide for the brightest pupils in that sector and instead rely on the private sector. That sort of Government do not believe in the state system. People expect better of a Government and this Government will do better. That is why I support the Bill.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: I am grateful to be called to make my maiden speech. I shall begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard)—he has the great advantage over me of having overcome the hurdle of the maiden speech. I hope that at the end of my speech I shall have done as well as he did, although I do not have the advantage of his many years as a teacher.
I was, however, for some years involved in the former Department of Education and Science as a special adviser; I played a part in the creation of the assisted places scheme, which the present Government are undoing. Despite that, I had not intended to make my maiden speech, or to intervene, in the current demolition job on

the assisted places scheme. As someone who has been involved in and concerned with education for many years, I thought that it was an open question. I did not know whether the good done by reducing class sizes, which I believe is a matter of importance, would outweigh the advantages of the assisted places scheme. For reasons that I hope to explain, having listened to the debates during the Bill's Committee stage, I have become persuaded that it is imperative for the country to realise what is happening.
I shall begin with some uncontroversial remarks, as I believe that that is traditional with maiden speeches. The part of the country that I am lucky enough to represent—West Dorset—is, without question and notwithstanding many comments to the contrary in other maiden speeches that I have heard in the past few weeks, the loveliest part of the loveliest county in England. The grandeur of the coast from Abbotsbury to Lyme Regis is unsurpassed, as is the beauty of the hills that stretch from Dorchester in the south to Sherborne in the north.
West Dorset is a part of England that is old England—where tradition is appropriately mingled with enterprise and where children attend fine schools, both maintained and independent. The vast majority of those children grow into responsible citizens who make a contribution to the community. It is a part of England where the voluntary sector flourishes. I speak not only of charities and other activities often referred to under that heading, but of the vast multitude of cultural, sporting and other activities in which people participate on a voluntary basis. They participate in those activities because they know each other, care about each other and like to act together. It is a part of England where there is, in the proper sense, a community—something which, I fear and regret, is missing from many other parts of the country.
I shall make another uncontroversial remark: West Dorset, beautiful, prosperous and pleasant as it is, has had the luck to be represented for the past 23 years by an outstanding constituency Member of Parliament, Sir James Spicer. Jim Spicer was held in high esteem on both sides of the House, not least because of his robust defence of democracy in the Westminster Foundation and elsewhere and for the contribution that he made to the physical well-being of Members of Parliament through his immense contribution to the gymnastics performed in the House of Commons gym.
It was not in the House that Jim was, above all, prized—it has been an extraordinary undertaking for me to replace him as Member of Parliament for West Dorset, where he was held not just in esteem, but in tremendous affection. It was extraordinary to find, throughout the length and breadth of the constituency, that many people who voted for parties other than the Conservative party believed that Jim was an unparalleled constituency Member of Parliament. I repeatedly came across people to whom he had given help, tirelessly and effectively. It is therefore with some humility that I inherit his seat.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I had not intended to participate in the debate. I understood the motive behind the abolition of the assisted places scheme to be the recouping of money to be used to reduce class sizes. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) tabled two new clauses that were rejected by the ministerial team. We were told that where additional money was available—for example, from a charity—Ministers did not intend to allow a local


authority that wished to send a child to an independent school to benefit from a unit of standard spending assessment. When the Minister of State said that, I wondered whether the House or indeed the Minister and his officials realised how devastating a hole it blew in the argument about recouping money.
A child who is currently benefiting from an assisted place and who moves into the maintained sector on the abolition of that place will cost roughly the standard spending assessment. If the local authority is not allowed to spend that money because the child still attends an independent school, albeit supported by an outside source with an amount equal to the difference between the maintained sector cost and the independent school cost, it cannot be the Bill's intention to recoup money. There must be another motive.
As a Conservative Member, I am perhaps unusual in hoping that the new Labour party has genuinely learned the lesson of the past 18 years and converted to the proposition that is of immense value to our democracy: that there is no longer any merit in fighting ideological battles or in making education the ground for such battles. I was sorely disappointed by the Minister of State's response, because it showed that the Bill has an ideological aim. It is designed not to recoup moneys to reduce class sizes but to end a scheme which, for ideological reasons, is regarded by the Government and their supporters as objectionable.
That in itself is a retrograde step, and it augurs ill for an issue of even greater moment which, I trust, will shortly come to the House—if in their august majesty the Government deign to bring such matters before the House. I refer to grant-maintained schools, about which the Government have vouchsafed the House and the country little information. If on that matter the Government are driven by the same ideological concerns and dogmatic intentions that have driven them on this issue, it will be sad for the country, for the Labour party, which I thought had grown out of such ways of conducting business, and for our children. I am grateful for being called to speak in the debate.

Mr. Alan Whitehead: I am grateful for this opportunity to make my maiden speech. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on an excellent maiden speech, some of which I agreed with. I especially agreed with his comments about the beauty of his constituency. I have spent many weekends in the Lyme Regis area and I can vouch for the accuracy of his remarks. I hope that the next time the hon. Gentleman sees me sitting on the Cobb at Lyme Regis he will, in a spirit of inter-party friendliness, buy me a cup of tea.
Some 130 years ago, John Ruskin spoke about the duty of the state. He said:
the first duty of a State is to see that every child born therein shall be well housed, clothed, fed and educated till it attain years of discretion.
That is a good yardstick by which to judge the government of the United Kingdom. How are we to do that, and how well are we doing 130 years on from Ruskin in terms of my constituency and my city of Southampton? I cannot say hand on heart that, if John Ruskin visited us now, he would say that we had succeeded. What would

he make of our homelessness and of the gross inequality in educational opportunity that we tolerate, although we have the technical and organisational capacity to realise Ruskin's vision?
Hampshire and Southampton are by no means the worst areas of the country in terms of educational opportunity, but 25 per cent. of Hampshire's infant schools and 30 per cent. of its infant and junior schools have classes of more than 30. In Southampton, 1,221 infant school pupils and 2,123 junior school pupils are being educated in classes of more than 30. Whatever we think about the arguments on the quality of teaching, common sense tells us that the larger the class the less the individual attention, particularly in the early years. That means that pupils are more likely to under achieve.
As a child of the state system and the father of two children who attend the comprehensive school nearest to my home, I am passionately concerned to ensure that the state system works in the best interests of everybody. Class sizes are important, and their reduction will make a difference even if in the beginning the classes are only a little smaller. I was astonished by some of the speeches of Conservative Members on Second Reading, particularly that of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who suggested that we should reduce class sizes only if the reductions are huge. He said that we could keep assisted places because the difference that their abolition would make to class sizes would not be very great.
The true import of that statement is revealed by changing some of the characters. It is like saying that a small increase in the number of policemen on the beat would not make an enormous difference to crime; only a huge increase would have that effect. Therefore, it is said, we should keep many police on one or two estates so that at least a few people can have a good quality of life and be free from crime. That example may help us to understand what Conservative Members are talking about.
Much about the Opposition's case is suspect. They quote the case advanced by the Institute of Public Finance in its 1996 paper on reducing class sizes. I am not sure how many Opposition Members have read that paper. The assumption is that the only saving that is available to the Government is the difference between the aggregate cost of an assisted place and the aggregate cost of a secondary school place. Using that calculation, the savings will amount to only £ 13 million in 1998–99. It is interesting to note that, by the end of the Government's first term, even the IPF suggests that they will be only £ 16 million short of their target if they use the aggregate amount that is saved by abolishing the assisted places scheme to reduce class sizes of five, six and seven-year-olds.
The Government say that those figures are incorrect. In a written reply on 22 May, it was stated that there are 800,000 empty places in existing LEA provision. Therefore, there is ample scope to accommodate pupils without assisted places. Who is right? The Minister's case seems to be strong, and we can carry out a test by examining the number of assisted places per local education authority. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) spoke about that. A more accurate picture can be obtained by using places in counties as the yardstick, because many people in London boroughs and metropolitan boroughs who take up assisted places come from outside those areas.
As we have heard, the discrepancies are huge. People in some parts of the country are more likely to gain access to assisted places than people in areas where there are few such places. That in itself is a scandal, and anyone who attempts to defend assisted places must explain the enormous disparity in the availability of assisted places in different parts of the country. A written answer of 27 January reveals the interesting fact that, even if we take, county by county, the number of places presently provided by the assisted places scheme and set that against the number of vacancies county by county, not in one case is the number of places potentially lost by the scheme anywhere near the number of vacancies. Therefore, even on a local level, the numbers can be accommodated within the state system at very little additional cost. The IPF figures are simply wrong; the savings are not as it suggests, and they are far more likely to be close to what my hon. Friend the Minister suggests.
I like to think that Southampton is a city of educational opportunity. It is certainly a centre for business. It has enormous European connections, a fine university and a thriving institute of higher education. One in seven citizens of Southampton is a student. Its port has links with the whole world. Its football team generously lets in goals to visitors the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, although it sometimes scores itself.
Oddly enough, the city was represented by my namesake, Colonel Whitehead, between 1642 and 1644. In between his parliamentary duties, he besieged and captured Bishops Waltham palace, which was, I suppose, an early example of business interests outside one's parliamentary duties. The city was also represented, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by your illustrious predecessor, Dr. Horace King, later Lord Maybray King. In his maiden speech in the House in March 1950, he spent much time describing the devastation wrought on Southampton by the blitz. I have not, of course, had to endure such trials. Instead I have lived for almost 30 years in a rapidly changing and prospering city that has been kind and generous to me. I hope that I can repay some of that by my endeavours here on its behalf.
You will also recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my predecessor Sir James Hill for his particular hard work in chairing many Commons Committees as a member of the Chairmen's Panel. I understand that he was an habitué of the many fine restaurants in the House, only some of which I have discovered so far. I wish him a long and healthy retirement from politics and thank him for his work on behalf of my city.
In a recent debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) said that Oscar Wilde lived in Reading under enforced conditions for some time, but I discovered recently that, for some years, he lived freely of his own accord in a house on the edge of Southampton common. He is not just a pretty epigrammatist. In an essay in 1895 entitled "Socialism and the Soul of Man", he made a profound description of the many and the few:
Socialism will be of value simply because it will lead to individualism. Under the new conditions individualism will be far freer, far finer and far more intensified than it is now. I am not talking of the great actual individualism of such poets as I have mentioned, but of the great actual individualism latent and potential in mankind generally.

As I have illustrated, the socialism that Oscar Wilde proclaimed considered all human potential: not just the dazzling achievements of the few, but the unleashing of the potential of the many.
I cannot find a better vision of the socialism of the Government I believe in than the observations of Ruskin and Wilde. However, the figures that I have quoted on the children denied the opportunity to make the best of their individuality bear witness against that vision. We have a choice and I am proud to make my maiden speech in this debate to advocate that choice—to keep the faith, albeit in a small way, with the vision of potential in everyone, which we in society can unlock, instead of giving privileges to some children while allowing others to fall by the wayside. I know what I want for the children of Southampton. That is why I have been proud to support the Bill.

Mr. Boswell: It is my pleasant duty, on behalf of colleagues, to thank the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Whitehead). His maiden speech contained some light touches about the city that he is clearly proud to represent and, in its substance, reflected a degree of preparation and passion that we shall remember and note. May I also be the first from the Conservative Benches to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on his speech. He showed a remarkable blend of both fluency and cogency in advancing his argument.
Clearly the Government may claim a mandate for the passage of the Bill, but just because they claim a mandate does not mean that it is of itself sensible. I advise the House to reject its Third Reading tonight. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and others have spoken both this evening and earlier of the Bill's flaws. I sum them up simply by saying that it displays misplaced opportunism and suggests that the problems that our schools have undoubtedly faced and continue to face will, in some way, be solved by the Bill's passage. It is dangling a false and shining prospectus before us.
The Bill contains neither the adequate financial means nor the mechanism to secure the class size reductions and the improvements of standards that Labour and indeed Conservative Members want. The substance of the Bill is very much less about class size and, sadly, reverts to the class war, but rather than go on about the overall sweep of the Bill, I should like to leave the House with one or two points for it to consider.
In my speeches in Committee, I have emphasised both the Bill's impact on individuals—on parents and pupils—and, to some extent, the institutional impact. I am concerned—I say this after receiving a sensitive and, in certain respects, helpful response from the Under-Secretar—that the way the Bill is structured will still create problems for individuals at age 11, who will find themselves caught in the transition from private education through the assisted places scheme to the maintained sector when they would typically have expected to remain in their prep school until the age of 13.
That is a human problem. The Minister sought to justify it by saying that she felt and had received advice that the settling in for those children would be less traumatic at age 11 than at 13. Clearly, that was not the view of her


colleague, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), a former shadow education spokesman, who made his views clear in his pledge to the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools and later in April. However, whether it is her view or not, the House needs to consider the views of parents and the interests of the children.
I hope that, either in subsequent consideration of the Bill in another place, in regulations or at least in advice to local education authorities, the Government will bring forward the principles that, first, the interests of the child, the individual pupil, should he paramount and, secondly, that parents' views should be taken into account by the Secretary of State in exercising his discretion on when the transfer should take place or assisted places funding should be withdrawn.
That is the personal and human side of this, but I should like to close on the Bill's overall impact. Last week, I told the House that I was concerned that, just as the move to comprehensive schools in the 1960s and 1970s, however well intentioned, had driven apart the state and private sectors of education, the Bill too ran that risk.
The hon. Member for Walton has featured extensively in our debates. I have already referred to his pledge. He has been the Banquo's ghost of the Committee stage, Report and Third Reading. One thing that he was quoted as saying, however, struck me as interesting; I hope that it is an earnest of the Government's intentions. He was quoted as saying that he wanted to build bridges to the private sector. I agree with that, but I fear that the Bill may build wedges dividing the state and private sectors rather than bridges linking them.
I do not claim that the private sector has a monopoly of wisdom, although it has many fine schools. It has a strong commitment to education; it often has the involvement of paying parents, as well as those benefiting from assisted places schemes. Those are great strengths, along with the other strengths that the Government will no doubt wish to advance. The sector also has the ability to innovate, and to be a little more flexible in its approach not only to the most able children but, on occasion, to the less able. On the other hand, it must surely benefit both sectors if they talk to each other and associate with each other, especially in view of the number of children who move from one sector to another in the normal course of their schooling. I consider that both socially right and educationally appropriate.
My major worry about the Bill is that it is overselling its achievement—its ability to resource other changes designed to improve the quality of state education—and driving a wedge between the state and private sectors. I feel that the Government owe it to the House to listen to the points that were raised on Committee, and to reflect on them before the Bill is passed. Even if we believe that the Bill will go through untrammelled, and that it will damage the private sector, it will be an earnest of the Government's good intentions if they reflect on the damage that they have done and seek to repair it by trying wherever possible to bring together the private and public education sectors.

Ms Margaret Moran: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this important debate. As the first woman

Member of Parliament for Luton, South, I must first thank all the voters in that constituency for the trust that they have placed in me and in our new Labour Government.
I speak as one who trained as a teacher, and also as a governor of two Luton schools, Cardinal Newman and Denbigh infants and junior school. In the latter capacity, I can certainly attest to the enthusiasm of teachers, governors and parents for our proposals to phase out the assisted places scheme to honour our pledge to reduce class sizes—but I shall say more about that shortly.
When researching my predecessor, Sir Graham Bright, I was fascinated to learn that it was one of his teachers who introduced him to politics. Although I cannot agree with his political direction, I believe that all our children should be given the same opportunity. Sir Graham Bright was perhaps best known as the parliamentary private secretary of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). I know that they are firm friends, and I am sure that they will both spend their new-found leisure time enjoying cricket—all the more so, no doubt, since our national team's new-found success under a new Labour Government.
The name of Ivor Clemitson is still well known because of his love of Luton, which I share. I am sure that he would share my anger about the fact that a men's magazine called For Him this week dubbed Luton the worst town in the country. I intend to start an "I love Luton" campaign to correct that unfair and untrue slur on our town.
I would say to the magazine's contributors, "Get a life!" They should try visiting Luton's carnival. Second only to the Notting Hill carnival, it is the work of Luton's council, its schools, play groups and clubs and its many voluntary organisations, which make it a spectacle not to be missed. Alternatively, they should try visiting Luton's newly extended airport. Made infamous by Lorraine Chase—with whom I share only a gorblimey accent—it is now the United Kingdom's fastest-growing airport.
I know from listening to many of my hon. Friends' excellent maiden speeches that it is traditional at this point to conduct a comprehensive political Cook's tour of one's constituency, but I intend to break that tradition. Instead, I want to pay tribute to Luton's greatest treasure, her residents.
We celebrate a diverse community, which includes many generations of Lutonians, some of whom are still in the traditional hat industry. It also includes two large communities—to one of which I am proud to belong—who share a history of coming from beautiful but sad and divided lands. I refer to Ireland and Kashmir. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for their energy and commitment to achieving peace in those troubled lands.
Luton's many peoples went there looking for work—for instance, the Welshmen who walked there in the 1930s, and my dad—to whom I owe a debt of honour—who found his first job after arriving from Ireland at Vauxhall Luton. Sadly, Luton's once-expanding manufacturing and car industries are now much smaller, but I am delighted that the IBC-Renault deal is likely to bring another 900 much-needed jobs to the area. Many of those will be skilled jobs, and Luton's prosperity depends on a well-skilled work force. That is why the Bill is so important to us: the skilled work force of the future requires a well-educated community today.
I listened carefully to the arguments of Opposition Members as they opposed the Bill and described the iniquities of the phasing out of assisted places schemes. I dispute some of the amounts that they cited when they spoke of the cost of those schemes. I understand that assisted places fees can range from £4,000 to £9,000 per pupil.
If Opposition Members want to know the impact that such figures would have in schools, I simply ask them to visit one of the schools in my constituency, such as Dallow infants and junior school, which I visited recently. They should come and meet Nazia, who might be a typical pupil. As with 90 per cent. of her classmates, English is her second language; her elder brothers are unemployed, like one in five of all young men in the area. She, or one in four of her friends, will return to a home that is unfit, in disrepair or overcrowded. If she is lucky, she will have a yard to play in but no garden. Nazia is in a class of 37 pupils and, try as her dedicated teachers might, they struggle to give her and her classmates the attention that they need to have a real head start.
Dallow is a good school. It has dedicated staff, governors and parents, and they deserve better. Reducing class sizes for Dallow, and for other Luton schools, will allow teachers to raise educational standards and to give Nazia and her friends real opportunities.
Let me make a final, impassioned plea—that we use the opportunities afforded by the Bill to raise standards not just in the three Rs, but in the use of information technology. Nazia will face a world of work and training in which information technology will be further advanced than we can possibly imagine, but she has no computer at home. Many schools rely on the sheer enthusiasm of staff, and on supermarket vouchers and other such schemes, for the IT equipment that they need. Yet access to technology in the 21st century will be as important as access to books in the 20th century.
I hope that we shall use the wonderful opportunities that the Bill provides, perhaps working with business, to champion the wider use of technology, so as to open up all the new world of work, of communications, of citizenship and of training for Nazia and her friends into the 21st century.

Mrs. May: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the generality of the Bill. In Committee, the hon. Member for Wallsend told us about some lessons that he had learned—

Ms Estelle Morris: indicated dissent.

Mrs. May: I do apologise, as a new Member, if I have got the name of the hon. Gentleman's constituency wrong. The hon. Member for whatever the constituency was—

Ms Morris: Tyneside, North.

Mrs. May: The hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) gave us the benefit of advice that he had received at an early stage from his father about

Conservatives. That set me thinking about the lessons that I had learnt at an early stage about the difference between socialism and Conservatism.
Socialism is about levelling down. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Conservatism is about levelling up. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Socialists believe that, if everyone cannot have something, no one shall. Conservatives reject that. Socialism destroys opportunity, whereas Conservatism builds up opportunity.
We have been told that the present Labour Government will be different, because the Government are new Labour and new Labour is different. Sadly, the Bill shows how wrong that claim is, because it is a socialist Bill—not my words, but those of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). I suggest that he is better able to judge than I am.
This is a socialist Bill, because it destroys opportunity instead of providing it. Ministers have defended the Bill on the ground that the Government will govern for the many, not for the few. The Bill, abolishing the assisted places scheme, does nothing to improve the education of the many, but it does much to destroy educational opportunities for a few.
In her opening remarks, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris)—I hope that I have at least managed to get that one correct—

Ms Estelle Morris: indicated assent.

Mrs. May: The hon. Lady said that the Government spoke for parents who want opportunities for their children. I can only assume that she and her colleagues have not met Geraldine Ewan—a teacher in my Maidenhead constituency, who was interviewed for an article in the Maidenhead Advertiser last week. The article said:
Geraldine's passion for the Assisted Places Scheme is born out of hard experience.
Ten years ago she was living on social security with children officially classified as 'gifted' and in need of special education.
`If it wasn't for assisted places my children would not have got the education they needed,' she says …
The Labour Government's actions to repeal the scheme puzzle Mrs. Ewan.
`What's so strange about abolishing it is that I would have thought the Labour Party was interested in breaking down class barriers and that's exactly what assisted places do'.
I have spoken to Mrs. Ewan. She told me about her children. Six children have benefited from the assisted places scheme. She told me about the children who have been to university, the subjects that they have read and those who are currently doing A-levels. She described the assisted places scheme as "a lifeline to us" and said that she could not understand why the Government were "kicking the vulnerable", because abolition of the scheme is hurting the children.

Mr. George Stevenson: You must be joking.

Mrs. May: That is what a lady with several children who have benefited from the assisted places scheme has told me, and the remarks that hon. Members are making from a sedentary position are extremely unfortunate.
As Mrs. Ewan is a primary school teacher in my constituency, I spoke to her about class sizes. She is worried about primary school class sizes, especially because she is concerned with the needs of gifted children and believes that they can be given the challenge that they need only in small classes. [HON. MEMBERS: ": "Oh."] She, and the head teacher of the primary school at which she teaches, do not believe that the Bill will reduce classes at that school, because they do not believe that the money is sufficient to improve class sizes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] They also doubt whether the money will be forthcoming.
The reactions that I am receiving are interesting, because the point about Mrs. Ewan's case is that her children were classified as gifted and they were able to get the education that they deserved because of the opportunity that was given to her, a parent on social security, to have her children provided with the best education that they could get, through the assisted places scheme. It is unfortunate that Labour Members are not interested in providing opportunities for children and ensuring that they get the education that is right for them.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) eloquently pointed out, the Bill's great failure is the fact that it does nothing to put into place the other side of the equation that the Government claim is in their mandate.
Of the few Labour Members who have spoken during the Bill's passage, some have spoken passionately about what they believe to be the genuine need to reduce class sizes. The speech in Committee by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) was an especially passionate call for money to reduce class sizes.
However, I say to those hon. Members and to the House that the Bill does nothing to reduce class sizes in our primary schools. It does not provide the mechanism that will ensure that money goes to primary schools to reduce class sizes. It does not even show us the mechanism whereby money will be given to local education authorities, and we all know the problems of getting money from local education authorities into schools—except in the case of Conservative-controlled authorities, such as Wokingham, which, I am pleased to say, having moved from Liberal Democrat control to the Conservatives, as a unitary authority will now pass on a higher percentage of its education budget to schools.
I welcome such decisions, but the Bill provides no extra money to schools to pay for the extra teachers or buildings that may be necessary if some schools are to reduce class sizes. It is pulling the wool over the eyes of the electorate, but it is not pulling the wool over the eyes of teachers.
I refer Labour Members to comments made by the National Association of Head Teachers, which has said that the Bill will not provide sufficient money to provide the number of teachers and buildings that are necessary to produce reductions in class sizes of the order that is being talked about.
All the Bill will do is to destroy opportunity. It will do nothing to improve the education of the many, and it will do much to reduce the quality of education of children who benefit from assisted places. If the Government had had their way, Mrs. Ewan's children would not have been able to benefit from schemes such as assisted places. If the Government had had their way, Mrs. Ewan's children would not have had the education that they deserved. The Government are not governing for the many or for the

few, they are governing as a socialist Government. It is about time that Conservative Members ensured that people understand exactly what the Bill is about.

Fiona Mactaggart: I should like to praise the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran), who represents a town that has much in common with my constituency of Slough—apart from the fact that Slough's airport is rather larger than Luton's. The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) spoke passionately in claiming that the Bill is kicking away opportunity from people, but that is rich coming from a supporter of a Government who, for 19 years, stamped on children's opportunities to get the best of their education in towns such as Slough.
It is traditional in a maiden speech to say nice things about one's predecessors, but, for me, doing so will be not a duty but a pleasure. I sought the Labour nomination for the Slough constituency because I knew that, if there were a queue of parliamentarians that included Joan Lester and Fenner Brockway, I jolly well wanted to be in it. I knew Fenner when he was frail and elderly, and occasionally I made the mistake of telling him, "Take care, Fenner." He would reply, "Don't take care—LIVE!" I only hope that, in representing the town of Slough, I have the same boldness, courage and principle that distinguished both of those former hon. Members. I am very proud that Joan has followed Fenner into the other place, where I know that she will distinguish its debates, particularly on the issue of children, which we are debating today.
My most immediate predecessor, John Watts, belonged to the Conservative party, but I know from my constituents how hard he worked on their behalf, especially when they were embroiled in the travails of Britain's immigration law. I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has already started to unravel some of the most unfair aspects of those rules.
John Watts had close relationships with many of the diverse communities in Slough, and I know that some of them were very disappointed when he went off on—as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions calls it—"the chicken run." Unfortunately in John Watts's case, he ran into a fox's lair. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Ms Griffiths) on occupying what John Watts had hoped would be his place.
Slough is one of the few towns in the south-east which, despite 18 years of decline in manufacturing industry, still makes things, such as Mars bars, Badedas bath products and Dulux paints. Everyone has used something made in my town. Although jobs in many of our traditional industries are gone, we pioneer new technologies and are proud to be the gateway to Britain's silicon valley.
The work available in Slough has made it a town of immigrants—from south Wales, the north-east, Poland, Ireland, Punjab and Kashmir—who have travelled to Slough in search of work and a better life. For their children, education is the key to that better life. The assisted places scheme, however, does not give most of those children the key.
We have heard about how assisted places are regionally unequally distributed, but we have not heard about the degree to which most children who benefit from the


scheme already have educational advantage within their families. More than two thirds of those pupils' mothers have themselves received a private or selective education, and their mothers are four times as likely as members of the general population to have an A-level. It is also not true that the assisted places scheme is the only way in which to achieve quality in education. In my county of Berkshire, more than 25 of the comprehensives have better A-level results than Pangbourne college, for example, as do my grammar schools in Slough.
The wonderful thing about the Bill is that the money that will be saved will benefit pupils in their youngest years in education, and investing in something that will take such a long time to repay shows the Government's courage. Who will benefit from such long-term investment? Every infant in a class of over 30 will benefit. I cannot list all the schools in Slough which have such classes, but they include Wexham Court combined, Cippenham Infants', Priory, Ryvers, Holy Family, Marish, St. Mary's, St. Anthony's and many others.
Teachers also will benefit from the Bill's provisions. I have been a primary teacher in an inner-city school, and I remember how much more exhausted I was in the year in which my class numbers increased by five pupils over the previous year. I also know how much better I did my job when I was teaching 24 children. Earlier this year, I was visiting the Lea school, in Slough, and a journalist asked a teacher at the school how she would vote. She simply said, "I am a teacher." For her, the choice was obvious, because no self-respecting teacher could vote for the Conservative party, which has shown such contempt for teachers' talents and efforts.
Our new Labour Government are already working with teachers. The letter that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State sent to schools and colleges emphasising that every school was good at something and that, in order to deliver high standards in education, we depended on working in partnership with teachers, was very welcome, and it has done much to provide the foundation for our initiatives.
I will tell the House about the reception class in one infant school in Chalvey which I know well. It has 28 five-year-olds in it, many of whom live in overcrowded homes with parents who are on low incomes. Twenty-five of those 28 five-year-olds can already do something that I, with many years of expensive education, cannot; they can communicate in two languages.
Children with English as a second language, however, are less likely to have access to reading materials and English at home, and they tend to perform below their ability in reading tests. I hope that the initiatives that we are taking to invest in the early years of education will provide those children, at the time when they can most benefit from it, with the key to open the educational doors which have been closed to them until now.
It is not just teachers and children but all of us who will benefit from our initiatives. Research such as the Perri/High Scope work in the United States shows that, for every £ 1 spent on the early years of education, we save £6 later in preventing crime and in remedial education.
Schools in my constituency are showing other ways in which the infant school can contribute to a harmonious community. Our Lady of Peace infants school uses its

close links with parents to run an excellent parenting education class. As the consultation document "Preventing Children Offending" issued by the previous Government showed, such initiatives contribute not only to a happy home but to keeping children out of trouble. I commend them to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Crime and youth disorder have brought Slough to the headlines. I dispute the Daily Mail claim that a "culture of violence" pervades our Britwell estate, but it is certainly true that many living there have been victims of violent crime, which has more than doubled since 1979. We need action that works on that issue. Young people themselves, including those who have been involved in violence in the streets of Slough, know what kind of action is needed. When asked by their peers, something like one in five of them said that the priority for action was improving their educational opportunities.
Many of our Government's plans focus on human rights. I commend to my Front-Bench colleagues one human right that will never be written into law, but which we have a responsibility to deliver. I refer to the right to read. The Bill is a crucial step on the road to delivering that right. Smaller infant classes and early intervention for children who do not do well with reading are the first steps to delivering the right to read.
If those children do learn to read, they may use their skills to read the poem by John Betjeman which seems to encapsulate the public view of Slough. I wonder, however, how many hon. Members have read beyond the invitation to the friendly bombs to destroy my town. The poem goes on to condemn the lecherous business men and to lament the ignorance of the clerk who makes his profits and drinks in the bars—mock-Tudor bars, as I recall—of the constituency of the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), but who dares not look up and see the stars.
Slough's great astronomer, Herschel, used a telescope to see the stars, but the stars of hope and ambition are revealed to most of us through the power of the written word. The Bill will mean that more children can raise their sights, achieve more for themselves and achieve more for our society. I commend it to the House.

Mrs. May: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the hon. Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran) who made her maiden speech before I spoke. I completely failed to congratulate her on it, which was bad manners on my part. I congratulate her on it now and say that, if the quality of her speech is anything to go by, she will be an excellent advocate for Luton.

Mr. Thomas Brake: I congratulate the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on her excellent maiden speech. She could have mentioned ICI Paints of Slough, a company for which I worked in the past.
I thank the electors of Carshalton and Wallington for electing me and for putting their trust in me, as other hon. Members have thanked their electors.
Let me mention my predecessor, Nigel Forman, who represented the constituency for 21 years. He was a good constituency Member and took an interest in education. Indeed, he was a Minister responsible for higher education for some months in 1992.
Carshalton and Wallington is in the London borough of Sutton which has been Liberal Democrat-controlled since 1986. It is in that belt of seats in south-west London that fell to the Liberal Democrats. The London borough of Sutton is unique in at least one respect, in that it has not only a Liberal Democrat council, but two Liberal Democrat Members and a Liberal Democrat peer.
My constituency stretches from Clock House in the south to St. Helier in the north, a large estate built in the 1930s, and from Beddington in the east to Carshalton in the west of the constituency.
The history of the area is well documented in a book by Douglas Cluett. The first sign of life dates from 1000 BC and there are still traces near St. Philomena's school in the constituency. In 1871, excavations on the site of the Beddington sewage farm revealed that the Romans had been there for a very different purpose: there had been a Roman bath house on the site. A number of the parishes were mentioned in the Domesday Book, including Beddintone, or "Beader's farm", Waleton, which was probably a Welsh settlement, and Aultone, or "farm by the spring". Those parishes became Beddington, Wallington and Carshalton.
Newer additions include the St. Helier estate, which comprises 40,000 houses and was built as a garden city in the 1930s. Many of its original features survive to this day. The Roundshaw estate is a much more recent addition and was built on the site of the old Croydon airport. Many of the streets and blocks in the area are named after famous aviators or aircraft manufacturers. Amy Johnson primary school is one example. The Roundshaw estate is currently the subject of a major regeneration project. The council, in partnership with various other organisations, is spending £105 million on the estate, taking away the walkways and the underground garages and making it a place where people will be proud to live.
I return to the subject of tonight's debate by mentioning Bandon Hill primary school, which is attended by many of the children who live on the Roundshaw estate. It was the first constituency visit that I made after my election and many exciting developments are taking place. Seven new classrooms are being built, and for the first time the school will have an assembly hall that is big enough to accommodate all its pupils. That is excellent news.
I do not understand, however, how the abolition of the assisted places scheme will help other schools in the borough that are in similar need of major renovation works. Temporary buildings—a euphemism for huts—have been in place for 30 or 40 years, and there is no possibility of their being replaced in the short or medium term.
The abolition of the assisted places scheme will not do anything about the Greenwich judgment, which affects all the constituencies in south-west London, particularly my own. In some schools, more than 50 per cent. of the pupils in any given year come from outside the borough. Perhaps we are victims of our own success. Since we cannot predict how many out-of-borough pupils will take places from local pupils who need them, we have the problem every year of a mad scramble to try to find enough school places in the borough.
The Liberal Democrats pledged an extra £2 billion each year for education. That is what we think is necessary to provide an education system that is second to none. In

contrast, all that the Bill proposes is an extra £100 million. That may sound a lot—there is some dispute about whether the figure is £100 million or £40 million—but is it really enough to provide high-quality education for absolutely everyone? The Liberal Democrats want to provide the best for all our pupils, as I am sure do Government Members. I am afraid that Conservative Members are talking about a select group of people to whom they want to give priority.
The £100 million on offer through the abolition of the assisted places scheme is the only new money being found by the Government for education. Although we will be supporting the Bill, I urge the Government to be more ambitious. We must tackle head-on the legacy of 18 years of neglect. If we do so, we shall command the respect of the British people, who are crying out for change.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech. In line with all the other maiden speeches that have been made in this debate, the speech by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) was very well thought out and shows that, when one is involved in debate and discussion, one can learn from the opinions and thoughts of others, as I am sure we all will in future.
It is a great honour and privilege for me to be able to address the House as the first Labour Member for Gedling—or Carlton as it was called from 1951. It is also an honour for my family, although the first concern of my children was that I should not be seen on television. Many hon. Members have told me that I should get out of that habit fairly quickly if I want to make any progress. I thank the people of Gedling for their support and assure them that I will represent them to the best of my ability.
My immediate predecessor was Andrew Mitchell, who was extremely well regarded in the constituency. He was respected as a hard-working Member of Parliament, who took up the cases of many constituents and fought hard for local issues. Whatever the reasons for his defeat, they were nothing to do with lack of work in the constituency.
Andrew Mitchell and I have been political opponents for a number of years. He was first elected as the hon. Member for Gedling in 1987, which was also the year that I first stood for the constituency. In all that time, he has always been polite and courteous to me, and never more so than on 1 May when, despite his personal disappointment, he congratulated me and wished me, as well as the Labour Government, well for the future. I am sure that he will return to public life—although I hope that it is not in Gedling in 2002.
The name Gedling often provokes the questions, "Where?" or "Sorry, did you say gelding?" Gedling is not a type of horse: it is an area of rich diversity that adjoins the city of Nottingham. It borders Sherwood in the north, the River Trent to the south-east and the city of Nottingham to the south-west. The main urban centres are Arnold and Carlton. Arnold has much rich history and is mentioned in the Domesday survey. Until the 1800s, it was a quiet forest village, although now it is a predominantly residential area. Carlton includes the conurbation of Carlton, the more industrialised areas of Colwick and Netherfield to the south and, to the east, the rural area of Gedling, from which the constituency takes its name. Gedling retain much of its village atmosphere, with many old shops and cottages.
There are also two beautiful rural villages. Burton Joyce is the larger. It is popular with commuters to Nottingham and has a most beautiful 13th-century church. Stoke Bardolph is in the valley of the Trent, with lovely views across the river to Shelford and Radcliffe.
The constituency is primarily residential, but has an important industrial and commercial base, which has been badly hit in recent years by the closure of Gedling colliery in 1991 and the more recent closure of the Home Ales brewery in Daybrook, following the Scottish Courage merger, which resulted in the loss of hundreds of jobs and the sad demise of another local brewery.
Gedling borough council is well thought of, particularly for its policies on housing, crime prevention, environmental protection and recycling. I am acutely aware of the number of local issues that I shall want to highlight in the House, including the need for additional funding from one of the many special schemes to help continue the efforts to regenerate Netherfield, the future development possibilities of the Home Ales breweries site in Daybrook, the restoration of the Gedling pit site to form a country park, which seems slow in coming to fruition, and the associated campaign for a Gedling bypass.
Today's debate is about education, focusing in particular on reducing class sizes. Just 11 weeks ago, I was a deputy head teacher in Big Wood school, a Nottingham city comprehensive. I applaud the measures that the Government have already taken. There can be nobody who does not regard raising standards of achievement for all children as a major priority for any Government. Phasing out the assisted places scheme and reducing class sizes for all five, six and seven-year-olds will mean a better deal for all our children.
A survey that I conducted of all the primary schools in my constituency showed considerable problems with class sizes. There are many classes of well over 30 for the youngest pupils in Gedling. Indeed, several are approaching 40 and one class has 45. Parents will welcome action on class size because it will help to start the process of meeting the targets set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of 80 per cent. of 11-year-olds reaching national curriculum level 4 in English and 75 per cent. reaching that level in maths. As many hon. Members have said, basic numeracy and literacy are essential for all pupils. Without them, nobody can achieve.
I should like to highlight two other areas of concern that are not helped by ever larger classes. The first is the relatively poor standing of the teaching profession. That is clearly demonstrated by the great difficulty that many schools have in recruiting suitably qualified staff. There are difficulties in head teacher recruitment. The Times Educational Supplement pointed out last week that there were 40 per cent. more advertisements for headship vacancies in the primary sector during the first four months of this year than in the same period last year, and nearly 60 per cent. more in the secondary sector. Coupled with the teacher recruitment shortage, that means that real difficulties could lie ahead. Those problems are affecting schools all over the country, including those in my constituency. I look forward to working with the Government to tackle those and other problems.
The second problem is the increasing disaffection among a significant proportion of school children. If we are to raise levels of achievement, all pupils must be able to learn in a calm, reasonable environment and teachers must be able to teach. Class size matters—as does good teaching—because it allows teachers to deal with individual problems.
Statistics from the House of Commons Library show that there were 11,084 permanent exclusions from schools in 1994–95, compared with 2,910 in 1990. We need to deal with that worrying upward trend across the country. The Bill gives us an opportunity to do something for the majority of children in our schools. By abolishing the assisted places scheme, we will provide extra resources to tackle the problem that faces our youngest children.
We have a modernising Government who are determined to raise achievement for all. There is a mood of great optimism about education, but there is also a realistic acceptance that there are no quick fixes and that tough and difficult decisions will have to be made if we are to improve our schools. We have great confidence about the possibilities before us. I look forward to the challenge and I will work hard to do my best to play a small part in achieving the goals of the new Labour Government—a fairer, more just society in which opportunities are available to all, whatever their background. If we are to realise those goals, the success of our education policies will be crucial, and the Bill will be a start along that road.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I congratulate the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) on his maiden speech, which was fluent and interesting. He paid a generous tribute to his predecessor, Andrew Mitchell, who was a great friend of many Conservative Members, and we noted the hon. Gentleman's courtesy. Andrew Mitchell was a fine constituency Member and I worked closely with him on the coal industry.
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on her interesting contribution to the debate. I had an especial interest in her speech because her late father, Sir Ian Mactaggart Bt, was a close friend of mine. He was a sound Conservative for whom I campaigned with great diligence and enthusiasm in Fulham in 1970 when he failed to take the seat from Michael Stewart, the Labour Foreign Secretary. I am sure that the hon. Lady's father would be pleased to see her in the House, although, as he was a fine supporter of the Common Market safeguards campaign, he will look down on her for some sound views on the European single currency.
When I was a Member of Parliament in the 1980s, I took great pride in the Conservatives' efforts to extend opportunity through the assisted places scheme. We gave the opportunity of a first-class education to many pupils who would not otherwise have enjoyed it. The scheme was a ladder of opportunity that we extended to some 80,000 children, but the Bill will kick that ladder of opportunity away.
The Bill is squalid and it represents old Labour, not new Labour. The Bill is spiteful and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) said, it will not level up, but level down. The attitude is, "Because not everybody can have it, nobody shall have it." I have not heard one Labour Member suggest that the quality of


education received by those with assisted places was anything to complain about. Labour Members know that they will take away from children a quality of education that is second to none, and they should be ashamed of what they are doing tonight. They speak not for the parents, but for the old school of Labour envy. The message must go out to the people that Labour has not changed its spots, and that one of the first measures that it has introduced is this spiteful, squalid little measure. It shows where Labour's true allegiance lies.
The Government have introduced the Bill in the name of providing funds to reduce class sizes. Everybody is in favour of reducing class sizes, but I can tell Labour Members that people do not send their children to independent schools simply because of the class sizes. That is a myth. People send their children to independent schools—many of them make huge sacrifices to do so—for other reasons. They do so because of the ethos and the discipline.

Mr. Stevenson: Come on!

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman does not understand those matters because he is an old-fashioned socialist. I know him from my time in Staffordshire and he has not changed, as we shall find out.
Independent schools provide a first-class education, and children are benefiting from that today. Their parents are grateful for the scheme—my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead mentioned a specific case—and it is a tragedy that it is being withdrawn. The Bill demonstrates the Labour Party's innate hostility to excellence and to independent education. I hope that we shall not see further moves in that direction.
Finally, I am disappointed that the Government did not seek to amend the assisted places scheme in any way. As a former Education Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) will know that in my previous constituency of Cannock and Burntwood is Maple Hayes, an independent school for dyslexic children that provides a fantastic service and is extremely popular with parents. That school has done an immense amount of good work, and from discussions that I have had with my hon. Friend I know that it was her desire, if funds had become available, to extend the assisted places scheme to cover special educational needs.
I accept the fact that I have been fairly hostile to the Bill. None the less, may I, in a spirit of compromise, suggest that the Minister could pick up the assisted places scheme? Instead of portraying himself, as he and his colleagues do, as pursuing a policy out of a sense of dogma and envy, he could say, "We shall keep some element of the scheme, and provide assisted places for special educational needs."
We all know that in the maintained sector there is little or no boarding or specialist provision. A great deal more could be done in that regard. I hope that, even at this late hour, the Labour party might consider the opportunity that assisted places could provide for extending the benefits of special education in the independent sector to a wider range of children.
I hope that the Minister will respond to that point, and perhaps give Conservative Members some hope—and also some justification for the belief that the Bill is not motivated simply by dogma.

Mr. Derek Twigg: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden speech tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) and I have sat on the Government Benches for many hours of debate on the Bill over the last couple of weeks, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on his own excellent maiden speech.
It is a privilege to have the opportunity to make my maiden speech. Like my predecessor, Gordon Oakes, who had a long and distinguished career in the House for more than 30 years, I was born and brought up in my constituency. Gordon Oakes became the Member for Halton when the seat was created in 1983, but was first elected to Parliament in 1964 as the Member for Bolton, West. He lost his seat in 1970, but won another at a by-election at Widnes in 1971.
Gordon was an able Member of the House, and served as Parliamentary Secretary at both the Department of the Environment and the Department of Energy. He was promoted to Minister of State, Department of Education and Scienct in the previous Labour Government, and was made a Privy Councillor in 1979. He was also an excellent constituency Member of Parliament, and helped many thousands of people during his career. I wish him a long and happy retirement.
It is right for me to mention, too, that the constituency produced another excellent Member of Parliament—Jack Ashley, now Lord Ashley, whose work on behalf of the disabled is well known.
Halton is not a town in itself, but an area based on local government boundaries drawn up in 1974. It comprises the proud towns of Widnes and Runcorn and the beautiful village of Hale. Most of the original town of Runcorn is in my constituency, although most of its new town area is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall).
Mine is a constituency of many waterways—the river Mersey, the Manchester ship canal, the Bridgewater canal and the St. Helen's canal.
The early pioneering chemical industry had its roots in my constituency, and that industry is still the largest local employer today. There are few household goods which do not contain components produced by the chemical industry in Halton.
One of the legacies left by the chemical industry was massive land contamination, especially in Widnes. However, through the fantastic efforts of the borough council and the local community, that situation has been transformed by a large land reclamation programme over the past 20 years. Where once were the most polluted tracts of land in the country, we now have a superb shopping centre, a golf course, open spaces and parkland.
With a much improved environment and excellent transport links, Halton is now a popular place to live. It is also the home of one of the most imaginative and interesting museums in the country—the national chemical industry museum, Catalyst.
Our most famous landmark is the Runcorn-Widnes bridge, similar in design to the Sydney harbour bridge and dwarfing the Tyne bridge. It is a stunning sight when lit up at night. Unfortunately, the bridge has now reached capacity, and we face regular congestion and queuing to get over it. I feel sure that this Government will adopt


a much more positive approach to working with Halton borough council and the Merseyside and Cheshire local authorities to come up with a solution for a second crossing, which is crucial to the economic and social development of the area.
My constituency has a great sporting tradition, as the home of Runcorn football club and Widnes rugby league club, now known as Widnes Vikings. Widnes rugby league club is the second most successful club in the history of rugby league. Indeed, given the size of the town, it has done even better than Wigan.
I mentioned earlier that the chemical industry is our largest employer. Over the past 20 or 30 years, it has shrunk significantly, and there is a need to continue to bring more diverse industries into the constituency. Our biggest challenge is high unemployment: real unemployment is running at 24 per cent. and youth unemployment is more than 40 per cent. A recent survey of local employers showed a 40 per cent. skills shortage—which explains why I wanted to speak in today's debate.
Education and training are crucial to my constituency. The Prime Minister was right to make education our No. 1 priority, and I know that the new Halton unitary authority, due to take over next April, will make education its top priority so as to help to regenerate the towns of Widnes and Runcorn by producing a skilled and flexible work force and improving the cultural and social lives of its citizens.
We must get things right at the very beginning. Lifelong learning starts in the early years, and I am pleased by the commitment to extending early years provision. I welcome the Bill and the move to end the assisted places scheme and to use the money to cut class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds. That is very important to primary schools in Halton, where there are 141 classes of 30 or more. That means 4,464 children, or 40 per cent. of the total. Our children deserve better individual attention from their teachers, and small classes can help to achieve that.
Although this is only one component in the strategy to raise standards in education, it is a crucial one. In Halton, 54.6 per cent. of 11-year-olds fail to reach the required standard in maths, and 50.6 per cent. fail to reach it in English—hence the importance of this measure to my constituency.
I also believe that the breadth of the curriculum that primary teachers have to deliver is onerous. It does not leave enough time to spend on teaching the basics: reading, writing and arithmetic. I welcome today's announcement by the Minister in that regard.
It is clear that the early years are a crucial part of a child's education. An 11-year-old who is not properly equipped for secondary school will quickly fall behind, making the job doubly difficult for teachers in secondary schools. Many secondary school teachers have told me that they despair at the poor numeracy and literacy skills of some of their pupils. Those pupils then struggle throughout the rest of their time at school.
I also welcome the Labour Government's commitment to improved teaching standards. Most teachers do an excellent job and deserve the highest praise. Many have their jobs made much more difficult by the immense

problems of social deprivation and poor parenting in some areas; but there are also teachers who are not up to the job, and they should not be anywhere near a classroom. Some schools are clearly failing their children. Although there may be poverty and poor discipline in some homes, that should not be used as an excuse for poor teaching and poor schools. There are plenty of examples of good teaching and good schools in similar circumstances. I therefore welcome the commitment to deal effectively with incompetent teachers, and the publication of the names of failing schools, as clear signs of our determination to raise standards.
As a further element in improving standards, I hope that the Secretary of State will publish much more information about the performance of schools. The current league tables are flawed and do not accurately reflect the true achievements of many schools. Nor do they give parents enough information.
Finally, I thank the people of Halton for electing me. It is a great privilege to sit in this House as their Member of Parliament. They are hard-working and generous people who have waited a long time for a Labour Government.

Mrs. Gillan: We have had a long and wide-ranging debate on the Bill, and one of the great pleasures has been the number of maiden speeches made on Second and Third Reading. I congratulate unreservedly all those hon. Members who have chosen Third Reading to make their maiden speeches. In particular, I congratulate the hon. Members for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), for Southampton, Test (Mr. Whitehead), for Luton, South (Ms Moran), for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) and for Halton (Mr. Twigg).
I want to single out two of the maiden speeches made this evening. I extend a personal and warm welcome to the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) because, although she cut this point out of her speech, she went to the same school as I did—so now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have two Cheltenham ladies college girls to deal with. The way in which the hon. Lady acquitted herself suggests that they are a force to be reckoned with.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who made an excellent maiden speech. It is a humbling experience to see how hon. Members make their maiden speeches and remain entirely note-free zones—an art which I cannot claim to have mastered myself.
The number of teachers, or ex-teachers, who have participated in the debate, especially from the Government Benches, leads me to remark that, while they can rightly be proud of being teachers, their presence has probably contributed to an increased pupil-teacher ratio. Perhaps they could give some thought to that.
I hope that many of the good teachers will remain in the profession. Those who have come here will bring their expertise on education. I hope that the Government will realise that not everything that they do in the future will be supported by those hon. Members who used to be teachers, but more of that later.
The Bill, with its seven clauses, is small and looks innocuous, but like a bullet it is small and lethal. It is lethal to families on low incomes. I remind the House of the reasons why the assisted places scheme was introduced. In 1979, the then Secretary of State, Mark Carlisle, said:


The direct grant grammar schools gave a high-quality academic education to children of ability, irrespective of the means of their parents. We on the Conservative Benches regretted greatly the decision to put and end to that scheme … They are, therefore, available only to those who can pay.
Many of the schools had gone independent; therefore, he said:
The schools exist. That means of opportunity exists. That means of opportunity should be restored to able children whose parents are unable to meet the cost."—[Official Report, 5 November 1979; Vol. 973. c. 41.]
The reason why the scheme was introduced is apparent to all Conservative Members but ignored by Labour Members. By introducing the Bill so rapidly, the Government have shown that they still practise the politics of envy of the worst possible sort. The Labour party remains true to the old principle: if my neighbour has a Rolls-Royce, do I work hard and try to buy one myself? Do I feel happy that he has worked hard enough to buy the car? No—I work to ensure that that Rolls-Royce is removed from him.
That is what the Bill does: it takes a type of education which suits certain children away from those of limited means. We have learnt that the Government will not even listen to reasoned argument. They believe that they are absolutely right. [Interruption.] I can see that Ministers believe that they are absolutely right. Laurens van der Post once wrote that there is no more dangerous animal than a man who believes that he is absolutely right.
The Government are dangerous men and women, because they will not listen to anything which could possibly make better that which they have laid before the House. In Committee, they brushed aside all the constructive arguments put forward by Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members to try to improve the legislation.
Behind the legislation lies a false promise. It is false because it aims to reduce class sizes in primary schools, yet the Institute of Public Finance report shows that eliminating all classes exceeding 30 for five, six and seven-year-olds would cost about £65 million annually, with an estimated additional cost of £100 million and that that would happen only if action was taken simultaneously to restrict admissions to primary schools.
The Minister for School Standards estimated that, by the turn of the century—not next year or the year after, but the year 2000—he might have saved £100 million. He is not sure; he cannot give us the figures. He cannot give us the figures for reducing class sizes. In fact, I wonder whether he can answer any of our questions. In the debate, the Minister exhibited a lack of understanding of what we were saying. His completely inadequate responses make us ask us a lot of questions about him and the brief that he holds. He did not answer any Opposition questions in any of his speeches on any of the amendments. In particular, he did not explain how the money that he hopes to save from the assisted places scheme will be ring-fenced to ensure that it reaches the primary classes whose sizes he hopes to reduce.
The Minister believes that his is the party of unity and that all Labour Members agree with what the Government are doing. Not according to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), however. Writing in the Manchester Metro News as recently as 13 May—the article was written by him, not a journalist, and says that small classes may not get top marks—he says:

Labour's election promise to reduce infant school classes to 30 seems an obvious first step towards better education all round.
But I am afraid it is not going to be plain sailing. Here's a hypothetical example. Seventy-one children apply to a school; it accepts 66 children which it plans to put into two classes of 33; five have had to be turned down. The result—five sets of upset and indignant parents.
If the school is forced to limit class size to 30, a further six children will have to be turned away. A nearby less popular school could take the original five rejected children and the additional six. But now there are 11 sets of angry parents.
Alternatively, the intake could be reorganised into three classes. That would allow the five children who had been refused a place to come to the school after all, making two classes of 24 and one of 23. But there is no third classroom, so where could they go?
Now there are 23 angry parents complaining about their children having to have lessons in the school hall or a portacahin in the playground.
Of course, small classes are ideal—but, as this example shows, the way ahead is going to be littered with pitfalls. It isn't necessarily going to be as popular with parents as you might think.
I hope that Ministers will talk to the hon. Gentleman and explain how they are going to solve those problems.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Gillan: No, I have very little time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."]. I am sorry, I did not realise that it was the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) who wanted to intervene. I will give way by all means.

Mr. Bennett: If the hon. Lady was so keen to quote me, she could have given me notice that I should be in the Chamber—fortunately, I was here. If she is so keen on quoting the article, will she explain my experience as a young teacher, facing large classes and the problems that that posed? It would have been fairer to quote the whole article, since she went so far.

Mrs. Gillan: I apologise. I did not realise that it was the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish intervening. I think that the article is good and I congratulate the hon. Member on it. Of course, he would know, because he was a teacher.
The Government have put education at the top of their list of priorities, but have we seen anything constructive in the Bill? No—it is busy taking something off children, rather than adding something to education. We have learnt a lot from the Bill. We have learnt that the Government can break pledges just weeks after they are elected: the Walton pledge has been broken. We have learnt that the Government will ram-raid policy through. We have learnt that they will make pledges when they do not know where the money is to come from. We have learnt that they intend to answer no questions from the Opposition.
This legislation attacks the few, not the many, and it attacks the weakest. It has been introduced to fulfil a bankrupt pledge. The Government are busy stifling the small voices of the minority because it is easy to stifle the weakest in our society. The Government are levelling down, not levelling up. I give them this warning. We have said that, if the Government are going to improve the education sector, we will support them, but I warn the Minister for School Standards now that the Opposition


will resist any attempts such as this to destroy the range of choice and diversity that we have created in the education sector—the state education sector.
This is an appalling Bill, and the Labour Government should be ashamed of bringing it in.

Mr. Byers: Tonight, we have had an informative and useful debate, with a number of excellent maiden speeches, in particular from my hon. Friends the Members for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), for Southampton, Test (Mr. Whitehead), for Luton, South (Ms Moran), for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) and for Halton (Mr. Twigg), who all spoke with great compassion because they know that our key pledge to reduce class sizes for every five, six and seven-year-old was one of the main reasons why Labour had such an overwhelming success on 1 May. That was the pledge on which we stood in the election and that is the pledge that we are beginning to honour this evening.
We also heard maiden speeches from the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and—from the Liberal Democrat Benches—the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), both of whom spoke about the need to improve the education service.
In the time available, I want to deal with the issues raised in the debate, particularly those raised by Opposition Members. There has been concern about the cut-off in clause 2 at age 11 for young people receiving an assisted place. I assure the House that the discretion to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment referred on Second Reading will be honoured. That means that the discretion will be flexible and it will be exercised in a way that is generous and sympathetic towards the needs of the pupils concerned.
Particular concern has been expressed about the position of 10-year-olds. Some have received accelerated places—they have been given a secondary education at the age of 10. As the law stands, only those young people aged ten and a half or older are deemed to be in secondary education and therefore receiving an assisted place through to the age of 18 in that school. As a demonstration of our commitment, in a generous way, to exercise the discretion contained in the Bill, it is our intention to extend that provision to all 10-year-olds so that they will receive an assisted place at the same school until the age of 18.
In opening the Third Reading debate, the shadow Secretary of State spoke about the mechanism that we would need to fund our commitment to reduce class sizes. The funding made available to local authorities will be ring-fenced and will be used only for the express purpose of reducing class size. I understand that some local education authorities will not respond positively to that and will argue that they need flexibility to meet local needs. However, we believe that there is one pressing need in the education service at present: to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds. It is a pledge that we intend to honour, which is why the funding will be ring-fenced.

Mrs. Gillan: I welcome the Minister's announcement on 10-year-olds. I hope that it was, in part, a response to some of the Opposition's reasoned arguments.
On class sizes, has the Minister had a chance to look at the written answer that I received earlier today on the number of children—14,000—who belong to travellers' families and who his Department estimates are not in education? Has he estimated the cost of adding 14,000 more children to the education system? Will he make efforts to get those children back into the education system? How will that affect class sizes?

Mr. Byers: That comment comes ill from someone who was a Minister in a Government who cut section 210 funds, which expressly made money available to travellers for their education.
We share the shadow Secretary of State's concern about the impact on the school population of those pupils who would have received assisted places and may well have to go into the maintained sector. We shall start phasing out the assisted places scheme in September 1998; 10,000 young people would have entered the scheme at that time. If all those young people return to the maintained sector, the number will represent one eighth of 1 per cent. of the total school population of 8 million young people—that is the scale of the problem that the shadow Secretary of State identified. When in government, she presided over a regime that saw more than 450,000 additional pupils in the school sector at the same time as budget cuts meant that there were 6,000 fewer teachers.

Mr. Hayes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Byers: No, I shall not.
Those were rich comments from a shadow Secretary of State who, when in office, failed to meet the needs of the majority of our young people.
The Government agree with the comments of a former Conservative Member of Parliament for Buckingham, George Walden, who said that there were just two things wrong with the assisted places scheme: the principle and the practice. He was absolutely right and we agree with his analysis. That is why tonight we begin the process of dismantling the assisted places scheme, the costs of which cannot be justified—£160 million this year, rising to £200 million by the turn of the century. The phasing out of the scheme will free resources to meet our class size pledge. That is in stark contrast to the Conservative party, which presided over increase after increase in class sizes.
The Bill marks the end of the assisted places scheme which benefited the few at the expense of so many. It is the beginning of the end of overcrowded infant classes and represents another milestone in our crusade to raise standards. Some 440,000 young people in overcrowded classes are the innocent victims of the previous Government's neglect of the state system of education. That must come to an end.
Forty days ago, the British people elected a new Labour Government. In just 40 days, the House with its Labour majority will honour one of our key election pledges. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 399, Noes 147.

Division No. 26]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cohen, Harry


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Coleman, Iain


Ainger, Nick
(Hammersmith & Fulham)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Colman, Anthony (Putney)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Connarty, Michael


Anderson, Janet (Ros'dale)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cooper, Ms Yvette


Ashton, Joe
Corbett, Robin


Atherton, Ms Candy
Corbyn, Jeremy


Atkins, Ms Charlotte
Corston, Ms Jean


Barnes, Harry
Cousins, Jim


Barron, Kevin
Cox, Tom


Battle, John
Cranston, Ross


Bayley, Hugh
Crausby, David


Beard, Nigel
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Berth, Rt Hon A J
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Curtis-Thomas, Ms Clare


Bennett, Andrew F
Dafis, Cynog


Benton, Joe
Dalyell, Tam


Bermingham, Gerald
Darvill, Keith


Berry, Roger
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Best, Harold
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Blackman, Mrs Liz
Davidson, Ian


Blears, Ms Hazel
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Blizzard, Robert
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Boateng, Paul
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Borrow, David
Dawson, Hilton


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dean, Ms Janet


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Denham, John


Bradshaw, Ben
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Brake, Thomas
Dismore, Andrew


Breed, Colin
Dobbin, Jim


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Donohoe, Brian H


Brown, Rt Hon Nick
Doran, Frank


(Newcastle E & Wallsend)
Dowd, Jim


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Drew, David


Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)
Drown, Ms Julia


Buck, Ms Karen
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Burden, Richard
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Burgon, Colin
Edwards, Huw


Burstow, Paul
Efford, Clive


Butler, Christine
Ellman, Ms Louise


Byers, Stephen
Ennis, Jeff


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Etherington, Bill


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fearn, Ronnie


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Canavan, Dennis
Fisher, Mark


Caplin, Ivor
Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna


Casale, Roger
Flint, Ms Caroline


Caton, Martin
Flynn, Paul


Cawsey, Ian
Follett, Ms Barbara


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Chaytor, David
Foster, Don (Bath)


Chidgey, David
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Foster, Michael John (Worcester)


Clapham, Michael
Foulkes, George


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Fyfe, Maria


Clark, Dr Lynda
Galbraith, Sam


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Galloway, George


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Gapes, Mike


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Gardiner, Barry


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Gerrard, Neil


Clelland, David
Gibson, Dr Ian


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Coaker, Vernon
Godman, Dr Norman A


Coffey, Ms Ann
Godsiff, Roger





Golding, Mrs Llin
King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Kingham, Tessa


Gorrie, Donald
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Graham, Thomas
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Grant, Bernie
Laxton, Bob


Griffiths, Ms Jane (Reading E)
Lepper, David


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Leslie, Christopher


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Levitt, Tom


Grocott, Bruce
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Grogan, John
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Gunnell, John
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Hain, Peter
Linton, Martin


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Livingstone, Ken


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Livsey, Richard


Hanson, David
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Llwyd, Elfyn


Harris, Dr Evan
Love, Andy


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
McAllion, John


Healey, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Heath, David (Somerton)
McCabe, Stephen


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Hepburn, Stephen
McDonagh, Ms Siobhain


Heppell, John
Macdonald, Calum


Hesford, Stephen
McDonnell, John


Hill, Keith
McFall, John


Hinchliffe, David
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Hodge, Ms Margaret
McIsaac, Ms Shona


Hoey, Kate
McLeish, Henry


Home Robertson, John
McMaster, Gordon


Hood, Jimmy
McNulty, Tony


Hoon, Geoffrey
MacShane, Denis


Hope, Philip
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hopkins, Kelvin
McWalter, Tony


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
McWilliam, John


Howells, Dr Kim
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hoyle, Lindsay
Mallaber, Ms Judy


Hughes, Ms Beverley
Mandelson, Peter


(Stretford & Urmston)
Marek, Dr John


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hurst, Alan
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hutton, John
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Iddon, Brian
Martlew, Eric


Illsley, Eric
Maxton, John


Ingram, Adam
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)
Meale, Alan


Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)
Michael, Alun


Jamieson, David
Milburn, Alan


Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)
Miller, Andrew


Johnson, Alan (Hull W)
Mitchell, Austin


Johnson, Ms Melanie
Moffatt, Laura


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Morley, Elliot


Jones, Ms Jenny
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Mountford, Ms Kali


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Mudie, George


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Mullin, Chris


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Murphy, Dennis (Wansbeck)


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Keen, Alan (Feltham)
Norris, Dan


Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Keetch, Paul
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Kemp, Fraser
O'Hara, Edward


Kennedy, Charles
Olner, Bill


(Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Opik, Lembit


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Khabra, Piara S
Osborne, Mrs Sandra


Kidney, David
Palmer, Dr Nick


King, Andy (Rugby)
Pearson, Ian






Perham, Ms Linda
Stevenson, George


Pickthall, Colin
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Pike, Peter L
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Plaskitt, James
Stinchcombe, Paul


Pollard, Kerry
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pond, Chris
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Pope, Greg
Stringer, Graham


Pound, Stephen
Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Stunell, Andrew


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Swinney, John


Primarolo, Dawn
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Prosser, Gwyn
(Dewsbury)


Purchase, Ken
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Quinn, Lawrie
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Radice, Giles
Taylor, Matthew


Rammell, Bill
(Truro & St Austell)


Rapson, Syd
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Timms, Stephen


Rendel, David
Tipping, Paddy


Robertson, Rt Hon George
Todd, Mark


(Hamilton S)
Touhig, Don


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Trickett, Jon


Rogers, Allan
Truswell, Paul


Rooker, Jeff
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)


Rowlands, Ted
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Roy, Frank
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Ruane, Chris
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Tyler, Paul


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Vaz, Keith


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Wallace, James


Ryan, Ms Joan
Walley, Ms Joan


Salter, Martin
Ward, Ms Claire


Sanders, Adrian
Wareing, Robert N


Savidge, Malcolm
Watts, David


Sawford, Phil
Webb, Steven


Sedgemore, Brian
White, Brian


Shaw, Jonathan
Whitehead, Alan


Sheerman, Barry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
(Swansea W)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Williams, Dr Alan W


Short, Rt Hon Clare
(E Carmarthen)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Singh, Marsha
Willis, Phil


Skinner, Dennis
Wills, Michael


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wilson, Brian


Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)
Winnick, David


Smith, Miss Geraldine
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Wise, Audrey


Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)
Wood, Mike


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Woolas, Phil


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Worthington, Tony


Snape, Peter
Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)


Soley, Clive
Wyatt, Derek


Southworth, Ms Helen



Spellar, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Squire, Ms Rachel
Mr. Clive Betts and


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Mr. Graham Allen.


NOES


Amess, David
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Burns, Simon


Arbuthnot, James
Butterfill, John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cash, William


Baldry, Tony
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Bercow, John
(Chipping Barnet)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Chope, Christopher


Blunt, Crispin
Clappison, James


Boswell, Tim
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)


Brady, Graham
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth


Brazier, Julian
(Rushcliffe)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Browning, Mrs Angela
Collins, Tim





Colvin, Michael
Madel, Sir David


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Malins, Humfrey


Cran, James
Maples, John


Curry, Rt Hon David
Mates, Michael


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Davies, Quentin
May, Mrs Theresa


(Grantham & Stamford)
Merchant, Piers


Day, Stephen
Moss, Malcolm


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Nicholls, Patrick


Duncan, Alan
Norman, Archie


Duncan Smith, Iain
Ottaway, Richard


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Page, Richard


Evans, Nigel
Paice, James


Faber, David
Paterson, Owen


Fabricant, Michael
Pickles, Eric


Fallon, Michael
Prior, David


Flight, Howard
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Forth, Eric
Robathan, Andrew


Fox, Dr Liam
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Fraser, Christopher
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gale, Roger
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Garnier, Edward
Ruffley, David


Gibb, Nick
St Aubyn, Nick


Gill, Christopher
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gray, James
Soames, Nicholas


Green, Damian
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Greenway, John
Spicer, Sir Michael


Grieve, Dominic
Spring, Richard


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Steen, Anthony


Hague, Rt Hon William
Streeter, Gary


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Swayne, Desmond


Hammond, Philip
Syms, Robert


Hawkins, Nick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hayes, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Heald, Oliver
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hesettine, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Horam, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Townend, John


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tredinnick, David


Hunter, Andrew
Trend, Michael


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Tyrie, Andrew


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Viggers, Peter


Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)
Walter, Robert


Johnson Smith,
Wardle, Charles


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Waterson, Nigel


Key, Robert
Wells, Bowen


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Whittingdale, John


Lansley, Andrew
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Leigh, Edward
Wilkinson, John


Letwin, Oliver
Willetts, David


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Wilshire, David


Lidington, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Woodward, Shaun


Loughton, Tim
Yeo, Tim


Luff, Peter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas



MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tellers for the Noes:


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin


MacKay, Andrew
and


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Mr. Peter Aiansworth

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

A494 (Improvements)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: May I, first, use this opportunity to congratulate the Minister sincerely on his appointment? I do so in the confidence that he will wish to do his utmost to carry out his duties to the best of his considerable ability. I believe that, by unblocking the conundrum that I shall shortly unfold to the House, he will have a golden opportunity to do that. I hope that he will grasp that opportunity and really make a name for himself.
This morning, I had an opportunity to consult "The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary." The word "temporary" is defined as
Lasting or meant to last for a limited time only; not permanent; made or arranged to supply a passing need.
The dictionary continues:
Things belonging to this life, temporal goods.
That is probably a better definition in the context of the appalling story of the A494.
I am pleased to have an opportunity to discuss this matter. It is not trivial; it means a lot to many thousands of people in Wales and certainly a large proportion of my constituency. The traffic lights concerned, on the A494 at Drws y Nant—yes, Hansard, I will send up a copy of my speech—are temporary traffic lights, according to the Welsh Office. In fact, they have been in place for more than 18 years and may yet become the subject of a comic opera. That may sound a little far-fetched; indeed, if it were not such a serious matter, it would be quite funny. In reality, it is anything but funny for thousands of people day in, day out.
It might help the Minister if I am permitted to give a brief chronology of the matter. The lights were installed in 1979, on boxing day, because the road was considered unsafe and prone to subsidence, posing a possible danger to road users. The road was therefore closed 20 years ago for "urgent" repairs.
To be absolutely fair, however, the stretch of road is not the easiest to repair because, on one side, there is a steep drop and, on the other, there is steep and rocky terrain. None the less, over the past few years far more difficult engineering feats have been accomplished in north and mid-Wales, and there is no question but that, given the necessary will, the situation could readily be remedied.
From 1979 to 1986, many individuals, councils and societies regularly wrote to the Welsh Office pointing out the inherent dangers in allowing the road to be used as it was being used, albeit temporary traffic lights and a one-way system had been installed. Over the years, there have been numerous very serious accidents at the spot, which is so narrow that a collision will almost inevitably result if a bus or lorry meets another vehicle on a bend. Many very experienced drivers have been involved in very serious collisions on that road.
I travelled the road from my home to my office almost every day from 1979 until I was elected as Member of Parliament, and I can vouch for the inherent danger of the current system. Moreover, on countless occasions I have

had to wait in traffic jams, some lasting as long as one hour, as two vehicles attempted to manoeuvre past one another without colliding with each other, the rock face or the wall. If one of the vehicles is in a hurry, nothing short of a calamity will occur.
When I was in legal practice, I often arrived late for court appearances because of the state of the road. I am making, however, not a personal plea but a plea on behalf of many thousands of people in my constituency. The current situation is dangerous because, as people are released from the traffic jam, their normal tendency is to exceed the speed limit to make up time, thereby causing a knock-on effect and danger to all road users.
My predecessor in the House, Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas, who is now in the other place, assiduously pursued the problem in attempting to persuade the Welsh Office to attach due priority to a solution. The former Gwynedd county council regularly made representations to the Welsh Office, as did—to give but a few examples—Bala town council, Brithdir and Llanfrchrath community council, Dolgellau town council, Llanuwchllwn community council, Meirionnydd district council, the Farmers Union of Wales and the National Farmers Union of England and Wales. The correspondence file is huge, and it confirms the priority that at least the people of Meirionnydd attach to the matter even if, hitherto, the Welsh Office has not.
In October 1987, the then Minister of State at the Welsh Office responded to an inquiry from my predecessor, stating that a solution would be a matter of prioritising schemes within the Welsh Office budget. He also stated that it would be unrealistic to expect improvements until sometime in "the early 1990s".
In January 1988, in a letter to Mr. John Dyer James, the county secretary of the Farmers Union of Wales, the director of highways wrote:
The design work highlighted problems and an assessment of alternative routes has been carried out. The results of that exercise are being studied and we would hope to undertake some improvement as soon as we can, although it would be unwise to anticipate that work could commence before the early 1990s.
That is the line that was adopted. Correspondence continued with individuals, councillors, my predecessor and many other people.
In January 1990, the director of highways at the Welsh Office responded to a letter from a local county councillor, Miss Gwenfon Hughes, who has assiduously pursued the matter. The reply to her letter took from 12 October to 30 January, which, one might think, was not a very good start. The letter stated:
We are, however, hoping to complete our evaluation of the option at Drws-y-Nant, for example whether there should be on-line improvement or a new alignment in the near future, and then to get on with the detailed design work.
The letter goes on to state that the officer concerned is
afraid the scheme is unlikely to start before the early 1990s and even if the statutory procedures can be satisfactorily completed and funds are available work could not start before late 1992 at the earliest.
On 7 February that year, another Welsh Office employee wrote, in response to the very same letter from the very same county councillor, that it would not be sooner than the mid-1990s before the work could commence. In the space of seven days, from 30 January to 7 February 1990, the commencement time slipped three


years. People think that "Yes Minister" was far-fetched. Was that response reasonable? It was not, in my view, a reasonable way in which to deal with an inquiry.
In March 1990, interim measures to improve the situation were ruled out on the ground of cost. In the meantime, the Welsh Office attempted to justify its non-activity by saying that traffic numbers were low. Nothing could be further from the truth. The A494 is one of the arterial roads carrying holidaymakers from Manchester, Liverpool and the midlands to various seaside resorts in the constituency, such as Barmouth and Tywyn. It is a very busy road all year round. It serves two cattle marts, one each end of the route, and those cattle marts are convened at least once a week and sometimes twice.
In 1991, the line adopted by the Welsh Office was that
allowing for the completion of statutory procedures, the possibility of a public inquiry and the time that will be required to complete the detailed design of the scheme, a start of works is unlikely for several years.
It was implied that the statutory procedures and the detailed design would take some time. The Welsh Office had already had 16 years to carry that work out and one wonders how much longer it really required.
In May 1991, the then Secretary of State for Wales, David Hunt, in a markedly helpful response to a Conservative opponent of mine said:
On present estimates the work will cost some £1.6 million".
I wonder how much the work would have cost 17 years ago. The letter continued:
and statutory procedures will be started in 1993 to enable the work itself to begin in March 1994.
The letter was heralded by my Conservative opponent as a real breakthrough, although he did not make a breakthrough at the election.
Regular correspondence continued and the start date slipped again from 1994 to the mid-1990s. According to parliamentary answers, work would commence in 1994, subject to the satisfactory completion of our old friend the statutory procedures. As a lawyer, I can tell the House that those procedures take very little time if one applies a little common sense and gets on with the job in hand. I have been able to do the job in a matter of months or weeks, so I cannot see why the Welsh Office could not do it.
Another excuse was introduced, this time the availability of finance. A parliamentary answer was given on 1 February 1993 bringing in the new excuse. In an answer in January 1994, it was said that draft orders for the scheme were due to be published in the spring and that commencement of the work was dependent on satisfactory completion of the statutory procedures. Again, the answer referred to finance. That was cold comfort for those having to use this dangerous route every day.
In March 1994, for example, a lorry driver was badly injured. His legs were trapped and he was stuck in his cab for many hours. That was one of several serious accidents over the years. The man was a local lorry driver and he knew the risks, but the on-coming lorry driver did not, hence the collision. I sent details to the Welsh Office and received, in April 1994, a response from the then Minister of State, who said:

Subject to statutory procedures and draft orders, we hope to start the works in 1995–6.
That was a further two years' slippage.
In January 1996, the new Minister of State said that the work was programmed to start in 1997, subject to our old friend the statutory procedures and, again, the availability of finance. Since then, the Drws y Nant pressure group has been set up. It has been most effective due to the good offices of Mr. Trebor Roberts JP, the chair, and Mrs. Bailey, the honorary secretary.
I understand that the scheme is now in the reserve programme for the financial year 1997–98. Therefore, it will not be started until 1998 at the earliest. The temporary traffic lights are already in the "The Guinness Book of Records". I am always pleased when my constituency is mentioned, but I am not so happy about that reference.
The last letter that I received from the former Minister of State at the Welsh Office, Mr. Gwilym Jones, stated:
The improvement is included in the medium schemes programme and albeit it awaits the availability of funds it continues to remain a high priority. Statutory procedures are complete, orders have been made and tender documents have been prepared and are ready for issue.
In the house on 12 December 1996, the Secretary of State announced the Welsh Office budget of £6.9 billion and explained his spending plans".
I suppose there is some hope, but I found that letter quite ominous and I wonder whether I read it correctly. If so, after all the years of patience and dozens of serious accidents, is the Welsh Office seriously suggesting in the second paragraph of that letter that
maintenance of the existing network
will preclude the commencement of work on the scheme? That is absolutely unacceptable after such a long delay.
Not to put too fine a point on it, the whole story is a farce from beginning to end. It is appalling, not least because of the facts that I have set out. Incidentally, the annual cost of hiring the lights is more than £1,800.
The danger is increasing due to heavier traffic and the deterioration of the road. This summer, Bala—which is my home area and the cradle of Welsh culture—will host the national eisteddfod, which I am sure the Minister will attend. Between 120,000 and 150,000 people visit that festival, and no doubt a number of them will have to tackle this obstacle.
The eisteddfod is held in August, when holiday traffic is at its heaviest. In the name of reason I call on the Minister to give me an unqualified assurance that the work will be carried out because it is simply a matter of time before there is a fatal accident. There have already been many serious accidents in which people have been maimed for life. It will be no comfort to me to say, "I told you so" if and when someone is killed.
Furthermore, the obstacle is undoubtedly hampering the area in terms of inward investment and must surely be offputting to tourists. Wholesalers to retail premises in Dolgellau and the south of the constituency are generally not prepared to send large lorries to Dolgellau and Bala and frequently opt for two smaller ones, thereby increasing the cost of delivery. The knock-on effect is clear: retailers have to pay more for the goods with obvious results.
It is high time that real action is taken. Although the present Government have been in office for only a few weeks, they tell us that it is now time to act. Let us have


action without any further prevarication or delay. I know the Minister to be an honourable man, so I trust that he will respond accordingly, because fairness and common sense demand it.
I realise that, for most of the time the lights have been in place, we have had a Conservative Administration. I now invite the Minister to bring this iniquitous and dangerous folly to an end and show that the Labour Government are prepared to take action where it is necessary and are not simply paying lip service to slogans such as "action, not words."
I shall listen carefully to the Minister's reply. I hope that he will be able to give me some assurances which, after some 18 years, are not being hurried out of him. I am sure that he has considered his response and will realise that the problem is a danger to the public. I ask him to give it due priority.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): I should like to express my gratitude for the congratulations of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on my appointment. I congratulate him on securing this debate. He is a widely respected hon. Member, especially for the diligent way in which he represents his constituency. I am aware that he has shown a keen interest in the improvement of the A494 trunk road, particularly the part in his beautiful constituency.
At the outset, I should say that the new Government propose a radically different transport policy in Wales—not that that will be difficult. The Tory Government had no coherent transport policy at all. Thatcherism just left it all to market forces and the result has been shambolic. Our roads are becoming mobile car parks, our railways have been chopped and privatised, and deregulation has brought savage cuts in bus services, resulting in many outlying areas being virtually cut off. Those on low incomes or pensions are consequently trapped and forced to buy from expensive local shops as the age of car driver shopping overshadows us all.
All that is undermining the quality of life and the environment. We will ensure that a new transport policy has a strong green dimension.
As part of our strategic review of roads in Wales, I have made it clear that the completion of two east-west super-highways will be priorities. The completion of the dualling of the A55 across Angelsey will provide a rapid road link from Chester to Holyhead, and the upgrading of the A40 in Pembrokeshire will link the Severn crossings to Fishguard. Both will be major arterial routes for inward investment and increased trade.
The A494, which is known as the Dolgellau-to-south-of-Birkenhead trunk road, carries traffic between mid-Wales and the north-west of England, and to the motorway network beyond. I agree with the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy that it is an arterial road and should be given significance, as he has argued.
In the 1994 review of roads in Wales, the section of the A494 between the Wales and England boundary and its junction with the A55 at Ewloe was designated as a major strategic route, with average daily traffic flows in excess of 54,000 vehicles. In the same document, the section

between Ewloe and Dolgellau, with much reduced traffic flows of 16,000—to fewer than 2,000 vehicles a day in some places—was designated as a route where no major strategic improvements to increase overall route capacity for long-distance traffic were considered necessary. That designation recognised its environmental setting. Any improvements on the section that were to be taken forward would be selected and targeted at specific problems such as the one described by the hon. Member.
A number of improvements have been carried out on the A494 over the last 10 years or so. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, the Pont Rhyd Sarn scheme, which is located between Dolgellau and Llanuwchlyn, involved the construction of a new bridge to replace a substandard one—which had been the site of a number of accidents—and was opened to traffic in the early 1990s.
The schemes already undertaken have been part of the Welsh Office's major and medium scheme programmes. In addition, many minor improvements have been undertaken over the years. There are several proposed improvement schemes in the Department's programme, which is split into major schemes, medium schemes and minor improvements. In the major scheme programme, which includes all schemes costing more than £3 million, two categories apply to the A494 trunk road. The following two schemes are in preparation: the A494 Deeside park to Ewloe improvement and the proposed Ewloe interchange improvement.
In the longer term, there are two further A494 schemes: first, the Mold to Ewloe improvement, which will involve the construction of a dual carriageway between the northern end of the Mold bypass and the proposed Ewloe interchange improvement; and, secondly, the proposed Llanbedr bypass improvement scheme, which is the final major scheme for the A494 currently in the Department's programme.
The Department's current medium scheme programme includes two A494 schemes in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The first is the proposed Merllwyn Gwyn to Glan yr Afon scheme, which involves the on-line improvement of the existing substandard trunk road. The area is particularly sensitive and my Department is carrying out an extensive environmental assessment.
The second is the Drws y Nant scheme, which is the hon. Gentleman's main concern this evening. I pay tribute to him for the way in which he has pressed for the scheme to go ahead since he came to the House.
The need for the scheme arose when part of the wall and rock support retaining the road became unstable. Traffic had to be kept away from the wall and the river, and one-way working was put in place while consideration was given to alternative remedial measures. After a review of the options available, it was concluded that the best long-term solution would be to construct a new section of road away from the line of the existing route. The necessary planning and investigation were carried out.
A shorter improvement scheme was considered, but discarded because, with the significant cost of around £1 million, it would still leave substandard approaches with poor visibility at Drws y Nant station and would be visually intrusive because of the extensive rock cuttings and long retaining walls needed.
It was therefore concluded that, in view of the low traffic levels on that part of the A494–3,000 to 3,500 vehicles per day, although the volume is much greater during the holiday months—it would be appropriate to retain the one-way working until the replacement scheme was developed.
I readily concede that the problem has lasted for an intolerably long time. After 17 years, it must rank as the longest lasting set of temporary traffic light in the world. I have not been able to find it in "The Guinness Book of Records", but there was a debate in the pages of the "Reader's Digest" on whether it was the longest. We agree about the need to tackle the problem. As the hon. Gentleman said, the scheme has reached an advanced stage of preparation, with the draft orders having been first published in May 1994.
The proposed Drws y Nant scheme involves the construction of a new 1.3 km length of single carriageway road, with a 7.3m wide carriageway and verges of variable widths. Construction would not have a major effect on the surrounding landscape, as most of the land required is part of the existing road or the dismantled railway. Most of the scheme will be screened from view by the local landform and surrounding woodlands and by the proposed screen planting. There is no objection to the scheme on environmental grounds, and there is strong local support for the improvement, which would take about 18 months to construct.
The design and contract documents for the scheme have been completed on behalf of the Department by Gwynedd council, acting as our agents. This scheme start is dependent on the availability of the necessary finance. Had the finance been available, tenders could have already been invited, but the reduction in central Government funding by the previous Tory Administration prevented such action.
Our review will assess whether schemes such as Drws y Nant can be supported. We will build it if we can. It has the highest priority in the medium schemes road programme. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, as a result of this debate, I shall give even more serious consideration to that priority. Work would have started on it this year

had it not been for the massive cut in the roads budget, which was nearly halved from £187 million to £115 million over the past two years. The Conservative Government failed the hon. Gentleman's constituency, just as it failed the rest of Wales.
I promise to do my best to get the scheme in the roads programme as soon as possible. It is ready and waiting to go. However, we have been left a dreadful legacy of budget cuts by the Conservatives, and it will be difficult.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman takes some encouragement from my commitments this evening. The future is much brighter, not just for this problem, but for the many other problems involving roads and public transport in Wales. The new Welsh Assembly will help us to implement a coherent transport policy for Wales because it will reflect all parts of the country and ensure that the interests of rural areas—especially those such as the hon. Gentleman's constituency—in mid and north Wales, are protected.
We are aware of the priority that is attached by the hon. Gentleman and local people to the scheme. By all objective criteria, it should be given the go-ahead as soon as we can find the necessary finance. We need to have a general review of transport policy and I hope that the hon. Gentleman, his colleagues, his constituents and other Welsh Members will participate. Transport in Wales needs serious attention. We need to strengthen public transport, develop the strategic routes that I mentioned, and deal with the major routes that pass through the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
Part of the answer to the problems will be securing a yes vote in the referendum for a Welsh Assembly, so that we can have policies that are designed for the needs of Wales instead of policies from a distance by the previous Administration who did not understand Wales and, in 18 years, did not deal with its problems.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will participate in the debate on transport policy and I hope that we will be able to resolve the long-standing problem that is so frustrating to his constituents and which he so eloquently described this evening.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.